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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 7/11/24 and 3/17/25, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
6. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2014/0314385 A1) in view of Burkett et al. (US-10295771-B2).
With respect to claim 1, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) disclose an apparatus comprising at least one input (30) on a front of a module (7) for a panel (figures 2-3); two or more output (40, 50) on the front of the module (7) of the panel; and a slack storage cassette (modular container 7) configured to secure optical fibers (3a-3d, 4a-4d and 5a-5d) between the at least one input (30) and the two or more output (40, 50).
Miller et al. do not explicitly disclose one input optical connector on a front of a module for a panel and two or more output optical connectors on the front of the module of the panel.
However, Burkett et al. (figure 7) teach an optical device including one input optical connector (16) on a front of a module (14) for a panel and two or more output optical connectors (18) on the front of the module (14) of the panel (figure 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miller et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Burkett) for the purpose of allowing for increased customization (column 5, line 36).
With respect to claim 12, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) disclose an optical fiber management device for telecommunications networks, comprising: at least one input (30) on a front of a module (7) for a panel (figures 2-3); two or more output (40, 50) on the front of the module (7) of the panel; and a slack storage cassette (modular container 7) configured to secure optical fibers (3a-3d, 4a-4d and 5a-5d) between the at least one input (30) and the two or more output (40, 50).
Miller et al. do not explicitly disclose a panel; a plurality of modules, where in each module comprises at least one input optical connector on a front of a module for a panel and two or more output optical connectors on the front of the module of the panel.
However, Burkett et al. (figures 3 and 7) teach an optical device including a panel (28); a plurality of modules (14), where in each module comprises at least one input optical connector (16) on a front of a module (14) for a panel and two or more output optical connectors (18) on the front of the module (14) of the panel (figure 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miller et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Burkett) for the purpose of allowing for increased customization (column 5, line 36).
Figure 2 of Miller
PNG
media_image1.png
344
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Burkett
PNG
media_image2.png
316
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2-3 and 19, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the input optical connector and each of the output optical connectors is a female connector configured to receive a male connector with an optical fiber and the optical connectors are standardized connectors selected from the group consisting of standard connectors (SC), Lucent connectors (LC), and Multi-fiber Termination Push-on connectors (MTP).
However, Burkett et al. teach an optical device including the input optical connector and each of the output optical connectors is a female connector configured to receive a male connector with an optical fiber (column 8, lines 1-5) and the optical connectors are standardized connectors selected from the group consisting of standard connectors (SC), Lucent connectors (LC), and Multi-fiber Termination Push-on connectors (MTP) (column 7, lines 45-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miller et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Burkett) for the purpose of allowing for increased customization (column 5, line 36).
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) disclose the apparatus, further comprising: an input splice sleeve between at least one input optical connector (11) and a splitter (10); and two or more output splice sleeves between the splitter and the two or more output optical connectors (12a-12d).
With respect to claims 5-6 and 14-15, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) disclose the apparatus, wherein the splitter (10) is configured to divide an incoming optical signal into multiple output signals (11) and the splitter is a passive optical device that does not require power to operate (figure 3).
With respect to claims 7-9 and 16-18, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) disclose the apparatus, wherein at least one input splice sleeve between at least one input optical connector and an optical tap ([0015]); and at least one output splice sleeve between the optical tap ([0015]) and at least one output optical connector (12a), wherein the optical tap is configured to split off a portion of the optical signal ([0008]) and wherein the slack storage cassette (7) includes a curved internal surface to reduce bending or twisting of the optical fibers (30, 40, 50).
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) disclose the apparatus, further comprising a housing (7) that encloses the input (30), the output (40, 50), and the slack storage cassette (7).
With respect to claims 11 and 20, Miller et al. (figures 2-3) substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the module is configured to fit into a standardized telecommunications panel with a lU height, and having an aspect ratio on the front face where height divided by the width is greater than 1.1.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miller to form the module is configured to fit into a standardized telecommunications panel with a lU height, and having an aspect ratio on the front face where height divided by the width is greater than 1.1 as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barnes et al. (US-20120051707-A1) disclose optical connections. Reagan et al. (US-20100124392-A1) disclose a FDH.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874