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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 18th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7, 10-11 and 18-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “a module for fiber distribution chassis having a connection density of 168 LC connections per rack unit.” The body of the claim recites no structural limitations on the module itself. The recited connection density of 168 LC connections is a description of the rack unit in which the claimed module is housed. It is not a structural attribute of the claimed module. The claim therefore encompasses any module capable of use in a rack unit regardless of its structure, dimensions, or components, and therefore the claim fails to particularly and distinctly set out the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2-7, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as incorporating the indefiniteness of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 7, 10 and 18, claims 7 and 10 recite “wherein the module is configured for use in a tray-less row of modules within the chassis” and claim 18 recites “the chassis comprises a tray, and three of the plurality of rows are supported by the tray, whereby at least two of the three rows are tray-less.”. The claim term “tray-less” is not understood, nor is it a term of art. Claim 18 is internally inconsistent. All three rows are stated to be supported by the tray while at least two of those same rows are simultaneously characterized as tray-less. The specification’s definition of tray-less [0052] does not establish a special definition, and even if it does, the term “tray-less” would be contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning. What is being described are modules that are supported by trays indirectly, not the absence of trays. Therefore the metes and bounds of these claims cannot be determined.
Regarding Claims 11 and 19-20, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as incorporating the indefiniteness of Claims 10 and 18.
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, 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 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US 9435975 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Ott expressly teaches a module for a fiber distribution chassis (Claims 1-3; Figs. 1-5). It shoes approximately 24 cassettes having 6 connectors each, for connection density of 144 LC connections, however it appears to leave space for additional cassettes. Ott does not expressly teach that the module has a connection density of 168 LC connections per rack unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to configure the modules of Ott for use in a chassis achieving a target density of 168 LC connections per rack unit, as selecting module adapter count and chassis layout to reach a desired density is a routine design optimization within the skill of the art which is capable with the Ott structure.
Regarding Claim 7, Ott expressly teaches that the module is configured or use in a tray-less row of modules within the chassis (Claims 1, 9, 16; Col. 5-6, Col. 7, 27-38).
Regarding Claim 8, Ott expressly teaches a module for a high-density fiber distribution chassis (Claims 1-3; Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a housing (68/168) comprising:
a front face (84)
a plurality of optical fiber connection elements (26) exposed in the front face (Col. 5, 40-62)
an element (54/56/70) comprising:
a first portion affixed to the housing adjacent at least a subset of the optical fiber connection elements (Claim 8)
a flexure (72/172) coupled to the first portion
a distal portion, coupled to the flexure, having a maximum width wider than the flexure (Figs. 21, 25)
Ott does not expressly teach that the flexure portion is configured to flex in a direction to move the distal portion alternatively towards the at least a subset of the plurality of optical fiber connection elements or away from the at least a subset of the plurality of optical fiber connection elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, that the coupled flexure portion of Ott is inherently capable of lateral deflection, moving the body toward or away from adjacent fiber optic adapters when lateral force is applied, as a predictable property of a connecting member.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US 94355975 B2) in view of Pilon (US10795107 B2) and Sedor et al (US11686911 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Ott expressly teaches a module for a fiber distribution chassis (Claims 1-3; Figs. 1-5). However, Ott does not expressly teach a plastic housing; and one or more magnetic elements embedded within the housing. Pilon expressly teaches one or more magnetic elements (66) embedded within the housing (Claim 6; Figs 6A-B). Neither reference expressly discloses that the housing is plastic. Sedor et al. expressly discloses a module with a plastic housing body (410) (Figs. 33, 34; Col. 12, 20-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the magnetic positioning elements of Pilon into the module housing of Ott, and to form the housing from plastic as taught by Sedor et al. as the use of embedded magnets for precise, repeatable, tool-free module positioning is a well-known alternative to mechanical engagement in the art, and plastic is standard housing material for fiber optic components.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US94355975 B2) in view of Pilon (US10795107 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Ott teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Pilon further teaches two groups of four fiber optic adapters (52) exposed at a front face, each of the groups being integrally formed (Fig. 5B; Col. 3, 16-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to arrange the LC adapters of Ott in two integrally formed groups of four as taught by Pilon as, as this grouping is a predictable design choice accommodating a cable management element between groups and achieving the desired adapter count.
Regarding Claim 4, Pilon further teaches the module falls within a width of 2.65 and 3.17 inches (Figs. 2A-B).
Regarding Claim 5, Pilon further teaches adapters (52/54) for eight optic connectors exposed at a front face, wherein the fiber optic adapters comprise a plurality of integrally formed components, each comprising adapters for a plurality of fiber optic connections (Col. 4, 27-40; Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the adapter block assembly of Ott as a plurality of integrally formed groups of four, totaling eight connections per module as taught by Pilon as, as this grouping is a predictable design choice accommodating a cable management element between groups and achieving the desired adapter count.
Regarding Claim 6, Ott expressly teaches a module for a high-density fiber distribution chassis (Claims 1-3; Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a housing (68/168) comprising:
a front face (84)
a plurality of optical fiber connection elements (24) exposed in the front face (Col. 5, 40-62)
an element (54/56/70) comprising:
a first portion affixed to the housing adjacent at least a subset of the optical fiber connection elements (Claim 8)
a flexure (72/172) coupled to the first portion
a distal portion, coupled to the flexure, having a maximum width wider than the flexure (Figs. 21, 25)
wherein the flexure is configured to flex to move the distal portion away from at least a subset of the adapters (Claims 8, 11)
Ott does not expressly teach that the flexure portion is configured to flex in a direction to move the distal portion away from the at least subset adapters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, that the coupled flexure portion of Ott is inherently capable of lateral deflection, moving the body away from adjacent adapters when lateral force is applied, as a predictable property of a connecting member.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US94355975 B2) in view of Pilon (US10795107 B2) and Sedor et al. (US11686911 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Ott teaches all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches that the element is integrally molded with the housing, or that the housing is plastic. Sedor et al. expressly discloses a module with a plastic housing body (410) (Figs. 33, 34; Col. 12, 20-60). Pilon further teaches a housing comprising elements (40/48) molded with the housing (Col. 3, 16-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to form the housing from plastic as taught by Sedor et al. as standard housing material and to integrally mold the cable management element of Ott with the module housing as taught by Pilon as integral molding of structural cable management features into fiber optic housings is a standard manufacturing technique.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Ott, Sedor et al., and Pilon teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Ott further teaches that the distal end of the element is configured to support a plurality of optical fiber cables (Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ott, Sedor et al. and Pilon teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Pilon further teaches the distal end is configured as a handle (74) for use in moving the module relative to the high-density fiber distribution chassis (Col. 4-5; Fig. 7A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the distal end of the element of Ott as a handle for moving the module as the forward-projecting element naturally serves as a gripping surface for pulling the module.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ott, Sedor et al. and Pilon teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Pilon further teaches that the housing comprises one or more walls (16/18/20), and one or more magnetic elements (66) affixed to the one or more walls (Col. 4, 55-64; Figs. 6A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to affix the magnetic elements of Pilon to the housing walls within the module of Ott as the use of embedded magnets for precise, repeatable, tool-free module positioning is a well-known alternative to mechanical engagement in the art.
Claims 9-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (US 94355975 B2) in view of Biribuze et al. (US7856166 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Ott teaches all the limitations of Claim 8, Ott does not expressly teach that the module is configured to be disposed within the high-density fiber distribution chassis with a plurality of like modules in three rows to provide a connection density of greater than 144 LC connections per unit. Biribuze et al. expressly teaches a module is configured to be disposed within the high-density fiber distribution chassis with a plurality of like modules in three rows to provide a connection density of greater than 144 LC connections per unit (Col. 10-11; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the plurality of rows of modules in the chassis of Ott to achieve a density greater than 144 LC connections per rack unit, as a well-recognized design objective within the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Ott and Biribuze et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Ott further teaches that the module is configured for use in a tray-less row of modules within the high-density fiber distribution chassis (Claims 1, 9, 16; Col. 5-6, Col. 7, 27-38).
Regarding Claim 11, Ott and Biribuze et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Ott further teaches the module comprises a slot (64) configured to receive a rail in the high-density fiber distribution chassis (Fig. 2; Col. 7, 27-38).
Regarding Claim 16, Ott expressly teaches a high-density fiber distribution chassis comprising:
a plurality of modules (24/56/124) each module comprising:
fiber optic connection elements (26) exposed at the front (Claims 1-4)
the plurality of modules are disposed in a plurality of rows (Figs. 1-4)
at least one of the plurality of rows is trayless (Claims 1, 9, 16; Col. 5-6, Col. 7, 27-38)
Ott does not expressly teach that the plurality of modules provides within the chassis of density of fiber optic connections of at least 148 LC connections per rack unit. Biribuze et al. teaches a plurality of modules within a chassis that provide a density of fiber optic connections exceeding 148 LC connections (Col. 10-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to adapt the trayless multi-row chassis of Ott to achieve a density of at least 148 LC connections per rack unit, as the field expressly recognized increasing density above 144 as a design goal well recognized in the art.
Regarding Claim 17, Ott and Biribuze et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 16, Biribuze et al. further teaches that the density of fiber optic connections within the chassis is 168 or less (Col. 10-11).
Regarding Claim 18, Ott and Biribuze et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 16, Ott further teaches that the chassis comprises a tray (40). Biribuze et al. also teaches three row arrangements per rack unit (Col. 10-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement three rows of modules on the chassis support structure of Ott with at least two of those rows in a tray-less configuration to achieve the density taught by Biribuze et al.
Regarding Claim 19, Ott and Biribuze et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Ott further teaches that the tray is slidably mounted in the chassis (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Ott and Biribuze et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Ott further teaches that at least some of the plurality of modules comprise an element comprising a flexure (72/172) extending perpendicular to the front, a distal portion, coupled to the flexure, having a maximum width wider than the flexure, wherein the flexure is configured to flex to move the distal portion away from at least a subset of the fiber optic connection elements (Claims 8, 11; Figs. 21, 25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 5712701739. 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.
/NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights