CTNF 18/638,312 CTNF 80914 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2011/0051341 (“BALDASSANO”). Regarding claim 11 , BALDESSANO teaches a fiber optic cable manager (30) comprising: a base (41); a sidewall extending from the base (FIGs. 3-4C) and defining a cable input opening (35a) and a cable output opening (33a); at least one optical fiber (36) configured to optically connect one or more fiber optic adapters to an opto-electronic device (via connector 38); and a plurality of mandrels (32, 34) extending from the base and interior to the sidewall, wherein the plurality of mandrels and the sidewall are configured to limit bending of the at least one optical fiber to greater than a predetermined bend radius (pars. [0032]-[0034]). Regarding claim 12 , BALDESSANO teaches that the sidewall further defines a plurality of output openings (FIG. 3). Regarding claim 13 , BALDESSANO teaches that the plurality of output openings comprise a first output opening disposed at a first end of the cable manager proximate to the input opening and a second output opening disposed at a second end of the cable manager opposite the input opening (FIGs. 3-4A) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDESSANO . BALDESSANO teaches the limitations of the base claim 14. The additional limitation appears to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts of BALDESSANO as set forth in the instant claim . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 6-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0072484 (“VAN BAELEN”) in view of BALDESSANO . Regarding claim 1 , VAN BAELEN teaches a fiber optic assembly (800), comprising: a housing base (804) configured to support one or more fiber optic communication connections (115); a housing sidewall extending from the housing base (FIGs. 69-72); an opto-electrical device (114) supported by the housing base; an adapter panel (upper portion) supporting one or more fiber optic adapters (908); at least one optical fiber (190, 191) optically connecting the one or more fiber optic adapters to the opto-electronic device; and at least one cable manager (900) supported on the housing base and routing at least a portion of the at least one optical fiber from the one or more fiber optic adapters to the opto-electronic device (pars. [0127], [0128]). VAN BAELEN does not teach that the at least cable manager comprises: a base; a sidewall extending from the base and defining an input opening and an output opening; and a plurality of mandrels extending from the base and interior to the sidewall, wherein the plurality of mandrels and the sidewall are configured to limit bending of the at least one optical fiber to greater than a predetermined bend radius. BALDESSANO teaches a cable manager (30) comprising: a base (41); a sidewall extending from the base (FIGs. 3-4C) and defining an input opening (35a) and an output opening (33a); and a plurality of mandrels (32, 34) extending from the base and interior to the sidewall, wherein the plurality of mandrels and the sidewall are configured to limit bending of the at least one optical fiber to greater than a predetermined bend radius (pars. [0032]-[0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the cable manager of VAN BAELEN with the above particulars of BALDESSANO. The motivation would have been to utilize the sidewalls so as to improve guidance of the optical fiber cable within the management system. Regarding claim 6 , BALDESSANO teaches that the sidewall further defines a plurality of output openings (FIG. 3). Regarding claim 7 , BALDESSANO teaches that the plurality of output openings comprise a first output opening disposed at a first end of the at least one cable manager proximate to the input opening and a second output opening disposed at a second end of the at least one cable manager opposite the input opening (FIGs. 3-4A). Regarding claims 8-10 , VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO renders obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 7. The additional limitation appears to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts of VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO as set forth in the instant claims . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0049681 (“BOOKBINDER”) . VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. VAN BAELEN does not teach that the at least one optical fiber comprises a plurality of optical fiber ribbons each configured as a rollable ribbon. BOOKBINDER teaches a plurality of optical fiber ribbons each configured as a rollable ribbon. (FIG. 7; par. [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical fiber of VAN BAELEN such that it comprises a plurality of optical fiber ribbons each configured as a rollable ribbon, as taught by BOOKBINDER. The motivation would have been to increase fiber flexibility and moveability . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO and further in view of BOOKBINDER as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2009/0290844 (“MULLANEY”) . VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO and further in view of BOOKBINDER renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 2. VAN BAELEN does not teach that at least a portion of each of the optical fiber ribbons that is disposed within the at least one cable manager is not surrounded by a cable jacket. MULLANEY teaches optical fiber ribbons disposed within a cable manager that are not surrounded by a cable jacket. (FIG. 5; pars. [0059], [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical fiber ribbons of VAN BAELEN such that they are not surrounded by a cable jacket, as taught by MULLANEY. The motivation would have been to allow for greater management of excess fiber length . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO, further in view of BOOKBINDER, and further in view of MULLANEY as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2015/0241654 (“ALLEN”) . VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO, further in view of BOOKBINDER, and further in view of MULLANEY renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 3. VAN BAELEN does not teach that the plurality of optical fibers have a planar configuration in the at least one cable manager. ALLEN teaches optical fibers that have a planar configuration in a cable manager (pars. [0028]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical fibers of VAN BAELEN such that they have a planar configuration in the at least one cable manager, as taught by ALLEN. The motivation would have been to allow for customizable fiber management (par. [0030]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO and in view of US 2020/0186951 (“LORTIE”) . Regarding claim 15 , VAN BAELEN teaches a fiber optic assembly (800) comprising: a housing base (804) configured to support one or more fiber optic communication connections (115); a housing sidewall extending from the housing base (FIGs. 69-72); an opto-electrical device (114) supported by the housing base; an adapter panel (upper portion) supporting one or more fiber optic adapters (908); at least one optical fiber (190, 191) optically connecting the one or more fiber optic adapters to the opto-electronic device; and at least one cable manager (900) supported on the housing base. VAN BAELEN does not teach that the at least one cable manager comprises: a base; and a plurality of cable routing channels disposed in the base. BALDESSANO teaches a cable manager (30) comprising: a base (41); and a plurality of cable routing channels (separated by mandrels 32, 34) disposed in the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the cable manager of VAN BAELEN with the above particulars of BALDESSANO. The motivation would have been to utilize the sidewalls so as to improve guidance of the optical fiber cable within the management system. VAN BAELEN further fails to teach at least one cable accumulation trough disposed along at least one of the plurality of cable routing channels, wherein the at least one cable accumulation trough is configured to limit bending of the at least one optical fiber to greater than a predetermined bend radius. LORTIE teaches a cable accumulation trough disposed along a cable routing channel, wherein the cable accumulation trough is configured to limit bending of an optical fiber to greater than a predetermined bend radius (pars. [0016], [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the cable manager of VAN BAELEN with the above particulars of LORTIE. The motivation would have been to limit the bend radius of the optical fibers so as to prevent mechanical damage. Regarding claims 17 , VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO and further in view of LORTIE renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 15. The additional limitation appears to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts of VAN BAELEN in view of BALDESSANO and further in view of LORTIE as set forth in the instant claim. Regarding claim 18 , LORTIE teaches that at least some of the plurality of cable accumulation troughs comprise linear accumulation troughs (FIG. 2) Regarding claim 19 , since the limitations of claims 18 and 19 are mutually exclusive, EXAMINER considers such limitations to be obvious variants of one another. If APPLICANT wishes to argue as to the non-obviousness of these limitations, EXAMINER will reconsider a possible Election of Species requirement. Regarding claim 20 , VAN BAELEN teaches a fiber optic assembly (800) comprising: a housing base (804) configured to support one or more fiber optic communication connections (115); a front wall extending from the base and including an adapter panel (upper portion) supporting one or more fiber optic adapters (908); lateral housing sidewalls extending from the housing base and disposed at either side of the adapter panel (FIGs. 69-72); an opto-electrical device (114) supported by the housing base; at least one optical fiber (190, 191) optically connecting the one or more fiber optic adapters to the opto-electronic device; and at least one cable manager (900) supported on the housing base. VAN BAELEN does not teach that the at least one cable manager comprising: a base; and a plurality of cable routing channels disposed in the base. BALDESSANO teaches a cable manager (30) comprising: a base (41); and a plurality of cable routing channels (separated by mandrels 32, 34) disposed in the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the cable manager of VAN BAELEN with the above particulars of BALDESSANO. The motivation would have been to utilize the sidewalls so as to improve guidance of the optical fiber cable within the management system. VAN BAELEN further fails to teach that at least one cable accumulation trough is disposed along at least one of the plurality of cable routing channels, wherein the at least one cable accumulation trough is configured to limit bending of the at least one optical to greater than a predetermined bend radius. LORTIE teaches a cable accumulation trough disposed along a cable routing channel, wherein the cable accumulation trough is configured to limit bending of an optical fiber to greater than a predetermined bend radius (pars. [0016], [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the cable manager of VAN BAELEN with the above particulars of LORTIE. The motivation would have been to limit the bend radius of the optical fibers so as to prevent mechanical damage . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4 , the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious at least one cable that includes the plurality of optical fiber ribbons, where the at least one cable comprises a jacketed portion retained in the input opening or the output opening. Regarding claim 16 , the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the base comprises a removable plate, and wherein the plurality of cable routing channels or the at least one cable accumulation trough is disposed on the removable plate . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday. 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 at 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 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. /JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 6 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 7 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 8 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 9 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 10 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 11 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 12 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/638,312 Page 13 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights