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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed April 25, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as May 2, 2023, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/463,345) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as April 25, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
none are seen.
The claims filed May 26, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1 & 17
N/A
Cancelled:
none
N/A
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1 and 17 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-20 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the second action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Specification
Applicant must provide the same terminology/vocabulary/phrasing in the specification that is present in the claims. At least one term or phrase is missing from the specification present in the claim(s).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction is required as the following amendment(s)/text in the claims find(s) no antecedent in the specification.
Claim(s)
Antecedent Missing For
1 & 17
"common horizontal plane"
As set forth in MPEP § 608.01(o):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
. . . While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure [sic, ensure] certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP §§ 608.01(i), § 1302.01.
Consequently, identity between terms and phrases in the specification and claims is preferred and is seen as mandatory to ensure “certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification”.
Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(e) regarding disclosure consistency:
The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Examiner considers direct correspondence between the specification and the claims to be important with respect to determining the scope of the claims.
Examiner strongly urges Applicant to review its claims with a fine-toothed comb and scrutinize them for any discrepancies between claim language and language that is used in the written description/specification as originally filed. Applicant is responsible for what it drafts. Discrepancies may be interpreted to Applicant’s detriment.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0054682 of Cooke et al. (Cooke) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070154158 of Laurisch et al. (Laurisch).
With respect to claim 1, Cooke discloses a fiber optic cassette (Figs. 1-10 and 31-33, inter alia) comprising:
a front-side face including a first opening and a second opening (Fig. 3 between the module rail guides 50),
the first opening being a first size and the second opening being a second size (per the figures);
a rear-side wall configured to include a rear opening configured to receive a multi-fiber adapter (Fig. 2A left);
a first side wall (Fig. 2A at 28, generally);
a second side wall (30, generally);
a bottom surface floor spanning between the first side wall and the second side wall (at 26, generally); and
a first row adapter configured to install into the first opening positioned in front of the bottom surface (Fig. 2A, ¶ 58, for the "plurality of extendable fiber optic equipment trays 20 that each carries one or more rear-installable fiber optic modules 22").
Cooke as set forth above does not disclose:
a second row adapter installed onto the bottom surface floor and positioned behind the first row adapter along a common horizontal plane with the first row adapter.
Laurisch discloses an optical fiber coupler module that includes (Figs. 1-4):
a second row adapter (Fig. 1, ¶ 25, outgoing plugs 15) installed onto the bottom surface floor (per Fig. 2 via guide elements 22) and positioned behind the first row adapter along a common horizontal plane with the first row adapter (per Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional adapters/couplers along the lines of Laurisch in a system according to Cooke as set forth above in order to provide more adapters and capacity. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber equipment tray system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a second row adapter installed onto the bottom surface floor and positioned behind the first row adapter along a common horizontal plane with the first row adapter.
With respect to claim 2, Cooke as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one wherein
the second size is different from the first size (seen as arbitrary, but the second size could be all or part of the front of the bottom tray while the first size is only a portion of the first tray) and
the second opening is configured to be a pass-through opening (seen as so configured.).
Size and shape are generally given less weight in determining patentability.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. 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). MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Herein and below, this analysis is referred to as “relative dimensions/size”.
Changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant [in a patentable way, i.e., unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like per below]. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). This is particularly true when the specification gives little or no description of why such changes in shape are unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like.
Herein, this point is referred to as “changes in shape”.
With respect to claim 3, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one wherein
the second opening is positioned at a middle portion of the front-side face.
Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 4, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one wherein
the second opening is positioned adjacent to one of the first side wall or the second side wall.
Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 5, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one wherein
the second size is larger than the first size.
Per the remarks of claim 2, above.
With respect to claim 6, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, the front-side face also further including
a third opening being a third size that is equal to the second size, wherein the second opening is adjacent to the first side wall and the third opening is adjacent to the second side wall.
Fig. 3 Cooke with the opening to the left two channels being the second opening and the opening to the right two channels being the third opening.
With respect to claim 7, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one further comprising:
a rotating member configured to hold the second row adapter and rotate the second row adapter to a non-zero angle with reference to the bottom surface floor.
Laurisch Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 8, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 7, further comprising:
an additional second row adapter positioned along the second row on the bottom surface floor (duplication of parts per below provides for as many Laurisch second adapter rows shown by the mounting panel 5 with the couplings 8 as desired and mechanically possible);
and a second rotating member configured to hold the additional second row adapter and rotate the additional second row adapter to a non-zero angle with reference to the bottom surface floor (per Laurisch Fig. 2).
Mere duplication of parts has no distinguishing significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Adding additional mounting panels 5 with the couplings 8 is seen as duplicating the one shown in Laurisch Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 9, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one further comprising
a third row adapter positioned at a third row on the bottom surface floor, wherein the third row position is deeper along a depth of the fiber optic cassette than the second row position.
Per claim 8, above.
With respect to claim 10, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 9, including one further comprising:
a rotating member configured to hold the third row adapter and rotate the third row adapter to a non-zero angle with reference to the bottom surface floor.
Per claim 8, above.
With respect to claim 11, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 9, including one wherein
a fiber optic connection capacity from adapters positioned along the second row and the third row on the bottom surface is greater than a fiber optic connection capacity of adapters installed onto the front-side face.
True depending on how many adapters are installed.
With respect to claim 12, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one further comprising:
a top cover configured to cover at least a portion of the fiber optic cassette above the bottom surface floor, including the second row adapter.
Cooke Fig. 2A, tray cover 34.
With respect to claim 13, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one wherein
a fiber optic connection capacity from adapters positioned along the second row on the bottom surface is the same, or greater, than a fiber optic connection capacity of adapters installed onto the front-side face.
True depending on how many adapters are installed.
With respect to claim 14, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one wherein
the fiber optic cassette provides a fiber optic connection capacity of at least 16 fiber optic connections (seen as having the capacity),
wherein at least twelve of the fiber optic cassettes are configured to be installable into a 1 RU space cable management system (seen as so configured),
translating to at least 192 fiber optic connections in the 1 RU space cable management system (same product/same features, see below).
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Consequently, because Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above as set forth above provides the structure of claim 1, the combination is seen as also providing the same claimed properties or functions of claim 14.
Unsupported features are seen to directly result from the supported/claimed structures. No authority is known by which unsupported or “naked” functions/characteristics/features can be claimed and subject to exclusive protection.
Below, this analysis is referred to as “same product/same features”.
With respect to claim 15, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, including one wherein
the fiber optic cassette provides a fiber optic connection capacity of at least 48 fiber optic connections,
wherein at least twelve of the fiber optic cassettes are configured to be installable into a 1 RU space cable management system,
translating to at least 576 fiber optic connections in the 1 RU space cable management system.
Same product/same features.
With respect to claim 16, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 1, but not one wherein
fibers coupled to the first row adapter and to the second row adapters are routed along the bottom surface floor and all coupled to the multi-fiber adapter installed on the rear-side wall.
Claim 16 requires a device constructed according to its immediate parent claim, claim 1, to be operated in a certain manner.
The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which 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) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP § 2114(II).
Consequently, claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as its immediate parent claim, claim 1, as not being differentiated from it.
With respect to claim 17, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses a fiber optic cassette comprising:
a front-side face including a plurality of first openings and a second opening, each of the first openings being a first size and the second opening being a second size that is different from the first size;
a rear-side wall configured to include a rear opening configured to receive a multi-fiber adapter;
a first side wall;
a second side wall;
a bottom surface floor spanning between the first side wall and the second side wall;
a plurality of first row adapters configured to install into the plurality of first openings positioned in front of the bottom surface;
and a plurality of second row adapters installed onto the bottom surface floor and positioned behind the plurality of first row adapters along a common horizontal plane with the plurality of first row adapters.
Per claim 1, above.
With respect to claim 18, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 17, including one wherein
the plurality of second row adapters are partitioned into at least a first group and a second group.
Per the partitions/module rail guides 50 of Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 19, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 17, including one wherein
a fiber optic connection capacity from the plurality of second row adapters on the bottom surface is the same, or greater, than a fiber optic connection capacity of the plurality of first row adapters.
True depending on how many adapters are installed.
With respect to claim 20, Cooke in view of Laurisch as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cassette of claim 17, including one wherein
the fiber optic cassette provides a fiber optic connection capacity of at least 16 fiber optic connections, wherein at least twelve of the fiber optic cassettes are configured to be installable into a 1 RU space cable management system, translating to at least 192 fiber optic connections in the 1 RU space cable
Same product/same features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
Cooke generally teaches a fiber optic equipment apparatus with an embedded rail guide system to store individual fiber optic modules. As seen in FIG. 1, Cooke's apparatus makes layered rows with independent fiber optic modules via direct stacking either vertically or horizontally. However, Cooke does not describe enhancement within a fiber optic cassette that includes "a second row adapter installed onto the bottom surface floor and positioned behind the first row adapter along a common horizontal plane with the first row adapter," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner response: Laurisch resolves the additional “second row adapter” elements missing from Cooke.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240369793 A1 published November 7, 2024 was previously cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to optical tray and cassette systems and the like.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20130183018 A1 of Holmberg discloses staggered adapters in two rows.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights