DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14, lines 2-3, “engagement formations” and “pairs of interconnected telecommunications cables” are unclear to how these relate to engagement formation and pair of cables cited in claim 1.
Claims 15-17 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahl (3325591).
Wahl discloses an enclosure (Figs 5-6) comprising: a housing (16, 17); and an engagement formation (18). It is noted that since the enclosure of Wahl comprises structure and material as claimed, it can be used for a pair of interconnected fiber optic telecommunications cables, each comprising a connector and a boot; and the engagement formation can be configured to receive each connector and each booth of the pair of interconnected fiber optic cables and to fasten fiber optic the cables to the housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl in view of Goodwin et al. (2005/0191903).
Re-claim 2, Wahl does not disclose the engagement formation comprising a booth engagement member for receiving each boot; and a connector engagement formation for receiving each connector. Goodwin et al. discloses an enclosure (1) comprising a housing and an engagement formation which is comprised of a boot engagement member for receiving a boot (not numbered, the formation in prolongation with connector engagement formation for receiving connector 35) and a connector engagement formation for receiving a connector (35). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the engagement formation of Wahl to comprise boot engagement member and connector engagement formation as taught by Goodwin et al. to further secure each cable pair within the housing.
Re-claim 3, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the boot engagement member extending in prolongation of the connector engagement formation.
Re-claim 4, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the booth engagement member and the connector engagement formation being aligned with one another.
Re-claim 5, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the engagement formation being provided as part of the housing.
Re-claim 6, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the engagement formation being integrally formed with the housing.
Re-claim 7, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the engagement formation being shaped and dimensioned so as to conform with shapes and dimensions of each of the connectors and the boots, see Goodwin, Fig. 2.
Re-claim 8, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the engagement formation comprising a channel.
Re-claim 9, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the engagement formation comprising a surface for preventing disconnection of the pair of interconnected telecommunications cables when the telecommunications cables are provided in the engagement formation.
Re-claim 10, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the housing comprising a complementary lid and a base (17, 16), wherein the engagement formation is formed of a first part arranged on the lid and a second part arranged on the base.
Re-claim 11, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the pair of interconnected telecommunications cables each comprise a cord extending from the boot, and wherein the engagement formation is further configured to receive and to fasten the cord, see Fig. 3 of Wahl.
Re-claim 12, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the engagement formation being in the form of at least one of a friction-fit engagement or a compression-fit engagement for the pair of interconnected telecommunications cables.
Re-claim 13, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the engagement formation extending along an entire length of the housing.
Re-claim 14, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the enclosure comprising a plurality (two) of engagement formations, thereby to fasten a plurality of pairs of interconnected telecommunications cables to the housing.
Re-claim 15, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose at least a portion of a given engagement formation of the plurality of engagement formations also forming at least a portion of another engagement formation that is adjacent to the given engagement formation of the plurality of engagement formations.
Re-claim 16, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the plurality of engagement formations being arranged parallel to one another.
Re-claim 17, Wahl and Goodwin et al. disclose the plurality of engagement formations lying in the same plane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Wahl which was filed in 1965 is directed to an enclosure for electrical connections, not fiber optic telecommunications cables. Examiner would disagree. First, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not consititute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Second, it has been held that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Applicant argues that Goodwins’s disclosure directly contrasts with Wahl’s description of an enclosure for a connection between two electrical conductors. Examiner would disagree. Goodwin is relied upon only to suppor the position of an engagement formation comprising a boot engagement member and a connector engagement formation; therefore, Goodwin does not have to disclose a connection between two conductors.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841