DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The terminal disclaimers (TD) filed have been disapproved because, as of 03/23/2026, the person who signed the TD is not under the customer number. Registration number and name of person signing do not match with office records under assigned customer number. The double patenting rejections are therefore maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed features including a base plate with an anti-rotation portion, a spool, an adapter module, a cable management plate, and a pair of locking post are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the adapter module feature is correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claims 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed features including a base plate with an anti-rotation portion, a spool, a cable management plate, an adapter module are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a spool locking washer and its features are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed features including a base plate, a spool, a spool locking washer, a cable management plate, an adapter module are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claims 13, 14, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 18, 23, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the spool locking washer and its features are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a hub and its features are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the spool and its features are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claims 17, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 22, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the adapter module and its features are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the adapter module and its features are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,402,596. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the adapter module and its features are correspondingly disclosed in the ‘596 patent.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application uses broader terms such as “a base portion”, “a cable receiving portion” instead of more specific terms such as “a base plate” and “a spool” in the ‘885 patent, and the claimed limitations are thus fully disclosed by the ‘885 patent.
Claims 7-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application uses broader terms such as “a base portion”, “a cable receiving portion” instead of more specific terms such as “a base plate” and “a spool” in the ‘885 patent, and the claimed limitations are thus fully disclosed by the ‘885 patent.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application uses broader terms such as “a base portion”, “a cable receiving portion” instead of more specific terms such as “a base plate” and “a spool” in the ‘885 patent, and the claimed limitations are thus fully disclosed by the ‘885 patent.
Claims 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application uses broader terms such as “a base portion”, “a cable receiving portion” instead of more specific terms such as “a base plate” and “a spool” in the ‘885 patent, and the claimed limitations are thus fully disclosed by the ‘885 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action, or by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. Matz is the closest prior art of record but fails to further teach or suggest two locking portions on respective anti-rotation portions of the base portion and adapter portion (which are configured to engage each other to prevent rotation of a cable receiving portion), when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action, or by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. The ‘947 publication is the closest prior art of record and relevant prior art fails to offer any reasonable suggestion a spindle to alternately include the anti-rotation portion, since it is already provided on the base panel, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Claims 12-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action, or by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. Prior art fails to teach or suggest a spool locking washer configured, or physically structured and arranged, to couple an adapter module for optical fiber cable with a spindle, and to prevent rotation of the spool and the adapter module, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPub5797558 discloses a cord take-up device.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874