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 .
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
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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laporte et al. (US 2003/0223725; hereinafter Laporte).
Regarding claim 1: Laporte disclosesA fiber optic closure (Figs. 1-6, closure 10; see paragraph 0020), wherein a reference coordinate system defines a mutually orthogonal vertical axis (Figs. 1-6, vertical direction), lateral axis (Figs. 1 and 3a-3b, direction parallel to the surface of fiber routing panel 56 and orthogonal to the vertical direction), and transverse axis (axis orthogonal to the vertical axis and lateral axis), the closure comprising:a spine (Fig. 1, frame 20) extending along the vertical axis, the spine forming a first wall (Fig. 1, the rightmost of the two labeled mounting surfaces 22; alternatively, Fig. 6, mounting surface having splice trays 68 attached to it) extending along the transverse axis, the spine forming a second wall (Fig. 1, the leftmost of the two labeled mounting surfaces 22) extending along the lateral axis; a platform (Fig. 1 and 3a-3b, fiber routing panel 56), the platform releasably attachable to the spine at the second wall (see paragraph 0023, wing nuts or threaded studs provide a releasable attachment; additionally compare Fig. 3a showing a detached configuration, and Fig. 3b, showing an attached configuration), the platform configured to extend in a first position alongside the second wall along the vertical axis (see Fig. 3b, when the platform is in the position shown, it extends in a first position alongside the second wall along the vertical axis), the platform configured to extend in a second position at an angle from the second wall between the vertical axis and the transverse axis (when the platform is detached from the spine, it is free to rotate in any direction, and is therefore configured to extend in a second position at an angle from the second wall between the vertical axis and the transverse axis); and a tray assembly releasably attachable to the first wall of the spine (Figs. 7a-c, coupler modules 42; alternatively, Fig. 6, splice trays 68).
Regarding claim 3: Laporte disclosesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the closure comprising: a platform retention member (Fig. 3a, see structures on spine which correspond to the threaded studs 55 of the platform; these are platform retention members, and they are configured to fix the platform in the first position, considering the first position to be the position shown in Fig. 3b) positioned at the second wall of the spine, the platform retention member configured to fix the platform in the first position.
Regarding claim 8: Laporte disclosesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the platform forming an open end proximate to a first end (Fig 3a, right side of platform 56, it is considered open because it does not have a raised edge) and a closed end proximate to a second end (Fig. 3a, left side of platform 56, it is considered closed because it does have a raised edge), the platform forming a retainer member at the closed end (Fig. 3a, any of the fiber routing clips 58).
Regarding claim 9: Laporte disclosesThe fiber optic closure of claim 8 (as applied above), the platform forming an opening through a platform face proximate to the retainer member (Fig. 3a, openings in the raised edge adjacent to each of the fiber routing clips 58).
Regarding claim 10: Laporte disclosesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the spine comprising a tray retention member (Figs. 7a-7c, openings 26 and latch grommets 28 are considered to be tray retention members) positioned in a track (Figs. 7a-c, the ladder-rung-like portions of mounting surface 22 are considered tracks formed by the spine) formed by the spine, the tray retention member configured to releasably attach the tray assembly to the spine (see paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 13: Laporte disclosesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the closure comprising: a routing panel (Fig. 3a, splice tray 51; alternatively, fiber routing guide 54) attachable to the spine, the routing panel forming a passage below the platform along the vertical axis (see Fig. 3b, the splice tray forms a passage below the platform along a vertical axis, where fibers are shown to be passing from the right side of routing guide 54 to beneath the platform in the attached position, said passage extending 3 dimensionally, including along the lateral axis; alternatively, see Fig. 3b, fiber routing guide 54 forms a passage below the platform along the vertical axis, the passage extending along the lateral axis), the passage extending along the lateral axis.
Regarding claim 14: Laporte disclosesThe fiber optic closure of claim 13 (as applied above), the routing panel comprising: a routing panel spool extending along the lateral axis (the half-moon shaped wall of the routing guide that extends in three dimensions, including along the lateral axis).
Regarding claim 16: Laporte disclosesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the closure comprising: an upper routing guide (Fig. 3a, splice tray 51; alternatively, fiber routing guide 54) comprising a wall forming a passageway extending along the lateral axis, the upper routing guide positioned at a second end of the closure (see Fig. 3A, the splice tray 51 comprises a wall forming a passageway extending along the lateral axis, the upper routing guide positioned at a second end of the closure; Fig. 3A also shows that the fiber routing guide 54 comprises a curved wall around the half-moon that forms a passageway extending along the lateral axis, the upper routing guide positioned at a second end of the closure).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte et al. (US 2003/0223725; hereinafter Laporte).
Regarding claim 5: Laporte discloses the fiber optic closure of claim 1, as applied above. Laporte further discloses that the platform comprises a platform face extending along the vertical axis and along the lateral axis when the platform is in the first position (the outward facing surface of platform 56 parallel to the mounting surface, as shown in Fig. 3b). Laporte further discloses a spool (Fig. 3a-3b, fiber routing guide 54) extending from the same mounting surface and connected to the fiber routing panel by the threaded stud 55. Laporte fails to disclose that this spool extends from the platform face. However, spools are well known in the art for routing optical fibers while preventing excessive bending, and since the platform routes optical fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Laporte device by providing additional spools anywhere optical fibers are routed, including an additional spool extending from the platform face, in order to organize optical fibers without allowing excessive bending.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Laporte teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 5, as applied above. The spool taught by Laporte additionally comprises spool tabs extending outward from the half-moon surface (see Figs. 3a-3b), which secure the optical fibers on the spool. In order to better secure optical fibers on the additional spools in the modification described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide them with spool tabs, based on the structure of the spool disclosed by Laporte.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Laporte teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 5 (as applied above), the platform comprising a platform tab extending from the platform face (Figs. 3a-3b, the raised edge along the left side of the platform 56, each of these sections, separated by gaps at routing clips 58, is considered to be a platform tab).
Claims 1-2, 10-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapp (US 2006/0029351; hereinafter Lapp) in view of Allen et al. (US Patent No. 5,261,024; hereinafter Allen).
Regarding claim 1: Lapp disclosesA fiber optic closure (Fig. 1, hood-type sleeve 30, pictured with the covering sleeve removed; see paragraph 0048), wherein a reference coordinate system defines a mutually orthogonal vertical axis (vertical direction of Fig. 1), lateral axis (Fig. 1, axis parallel to the narrow side 43 and orthogonal to the vertical direction), and transverse axis (axis orthogonal to the vertical axis and lateral axis), the closure comprising:a spine (Fig. 1, frame 37) extending along the vertical axis, the spine forming a first wall (Fig. 2, mounting surface of frame on front side 40) extending along the transverse axis, the spine forming a second wall (Fig. 2, side surface of frame, having an opening for the drawer 82 shown in Fig. 1) extending along the lateral axis; a platform (Fig. 1, drawer 82), the platform releasably attachable to the spine at the second wall (Fig. 1 shows the drawer attached to the second wall; it is also considered to be releasable, see paragraph 0073), the platform configured to extend in a first position alongside the second wall along the vertical axis (Fig. 1 shows this).
Lapp further discloses a tray assembly releasably attachable to the first wall of the spine (see Fig. 1, trays 49, including components of the assembly which are included in attaching the trays to the frame). Lapp fails to disclose that the platform is configured to extend in a second position at an angle from the second wall between the vertical axis and the transverse axis. However, Allen, also related to fiber closures (see abstract and Fig. 9), teaches a storage tray attached to the spine (see Fig. 9, storage tray 71), having a passage for routing optical fibers from the base (Fig. 9, fibers are within tubes 73 and routed from base 48). The storage tray is configured to rotate from a first position along a second wall (Fig. 7 shows first position) to a second position (Fig. 8 shows tray 71 in second position), extending at an angle from the second wall (Fig. 8, wall of card cage 51 facing the tray 71) between a vertical axis (vertical direction of Fig. 8) and a transverse axis (axis parallel to side surface 56 and orthogonal to vertical direction of Fig. 8). This arrangement allows optical fibers to be routed from the holes in the base and into the tray 71, and it allows for the fibers to be accessible while also preventing the optical fibers from bending to a degree beyond the minimum bend radius of the fibers (see col. 6, line 50-col. 7, line 15). The pivoting tray provides a benefit over the slidable drawer arrangement of Lapp because the fibers can be pulled away from the spine of the fiber closure so that they can be accessed, but the strain on the fibers near the base, where their movement is restricted, is less because of the ability of the tray to rotate from a pivot at the base. In order to reduce the strain on the fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Lapp device by allowing the tray to pivot from a base point rather than translate along the lateral axis, since Lapp also shows fibers extending into the tray from a base (see Fig. 22), based on the configuration taught by Allen.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Lapp teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 1, as applied above. In making the modification described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a hinge interface rotatably coupling the platform to the spine at the second wall, since Lapp shows the drawer being coupled to the second wall, and since hinge interfaces, such as those taught by Allen or those which appear to attach the holders to the splice cases in the Lapp device, are conventional in the art for providing pivotable attachments between two components.
Regarding claim 10: Modified Lapp teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the spine comprising a tray retention member (Fig. 3, openings 47) positioned in a track (Fig. 3, leg 45) formed by the spine, the tray retention member configured to releasably attach the tray assembly to the spine (see paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Lapp teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 10 (as applied above), the tray assembly comprising: a tray panel (Fig. 3, holders 48), wherein the tray panel is extending along the vertical axis when attached to the spine; and a plurality of tray plates releasably attachable to the tray panel (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Lapp teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 11, as applied above. Lapp further teaches that the tray retention member forms a slot at the spine and that the slot is receivable by the tray panel at the spine (see paragraph 0054). Modifying the device such that the tray panel, rather than the tray retention member, forms the slot, would equivalently allow the connection of the tray panel and the tray retention member, as would have been recognized before the filing date of the claimed invention by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, because these two attachment configurations were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the slot of the tray retention member for a slot on the tray panel, with a corresponding mating feature added to the spine so that the slot is receivable at the tray retention member at the spine (See MPEP §2144.06).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Lapp teaches The fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the closure comprising: a routing panel (Fig. 5, directing device or fixing device 61) attachable to the spine, the routing panel forming a passage below the platform along the vertical axis (best shown in Fig. 8; additionally, see paragraph 0060; the passage extends in 3 dimensions including along the lateral axis), the passage extending along the lateral axis.
Regarding claim 15: Modified Lapp teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 13 (as applied above), the closure comprising: a tube holder attachable to the routing panel (Fig. 32, holding plate 95; see paragraph 0086), the tube holder forming a channel extending along the vertical axis (Fig. 32 shows this).
Regarding claim 17: Lapp disclosesA fiber optic closure (Fig. 1, hood-type sleeve 30, pictured with the covering sleeve removed; see paragraph 0048), wherein a reference coordinate system defines a mutually orthogonal vertical axis (vertical direction of Fig. 1), lateral axis (Fig. 1, axis parallel to the narrow side 43 and orthogonal to the vertical direction), and transverse axis (axis orthogonal to the vertical axis and lateral axis), the closure comprising: a spine (Fig. 1, frame 37) extending along the vertical axis, the spine forming a first wall (Fig. 2, wall including parts of frame parts 38 forming a mounting surface of frame on front side 40) extending along the transverse axis, the first wall comprising a first face (outer facing surface of first wall) and a second face (interior facing surface of first wall) each extending along the transverse axis and the vertical axis, the first face and the second face each positioned opposite of one another along the lateral axis (see Figs. 1-2), the spine forming a second wall (Fig. 2, side of frame, having an opening for the drawer 82 shown in Fig. 1) extending along the lateral axis, the second wall comprising a third face (outer surface of second wall) and a fourth face (inner surface of second wall) each extending along the lateral axis and the vertical axis, the third face and the fourth face each positioned opposite of one another along the transverse axis (see Figs. 1-2);a platform (Fig. 1, drawer 82), the platform releasably attachable to the spine at each of the third face and the fourth face (examiner notes that the language “releasably attachable” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require the platform to be disclosed to be releasably attached to the third face and the fourth face, and the platform is considered to be releasably attachable to the third and fourth face because the attachment isn’t disclosed to be or inherently prevented), the platform configured to extend in a first position alongside the second wall along the vertical axis (Fig. 1 shows this),
Lapp further disclosesa plurality of tray assemblies (see Fig. 1, trays 49, including components of the assembly which are included in attaching the trays to the frame, any subset thereof including at least two trays 49 can be considered a tray assembly, e.g. the top half of the trays 49 and the bottom half of trays 49 on the first wall, shown in Fig. 1 of Lapp) releasably attachable to the first face and the second face of the spine (examiner notes that the language “releasably attachable” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require the tray assemblies to be disclosed to be releasably attached to the first face and the second face, and the plurality of tray assemblies are considered to be releasably attachable to the first and second face because the attachment isn’t disclosed to be or inherently prevented), the plurality of tray assemblies attachable to the spine in adjacent arrangement along the vertical axis at the first face and the second face (see notes above regarding the BRI of “attachable”, the plurality of tray assemblies are considered to be attachable to the first and second face in adjacent arrangement along the vertical axis at the first face and the second face because the attachment in this manner isn’t disclosed to be or inherently prevented), each tray assembly comprising a tray panel (Fig. 3, holders 48; the tray panel can also be considered a subset of the holders 48 corresponding to each tray assembly, e.g. a top half of holders and a bottom half of holders, based on the example provided above for the tray assemblies) extending along the vertical axis when attached to the spine (see Fig. 3), wherein a plurality of tray plates is releasably attachable to the tray panel (Fig. 1, trays 49; they are considered to be “releasably attachable”).
Lapp fails to disclose the platform configured to extend in a second position at an angle from second wall between the vertical axis and the transverse axis. However, Allen, also related to fiber closures (see abstract and Fig. 9), teaches a storage tray attached to the spine (see Fig. 9, storage tray 71), having a passage for routing optical fibers from the base (Fig. 9, fibers are within tubes 73 and routed from base 48). The storage tray is configured to rotate from a first position along a second wall (Fig. 7 shows first position) to a second position (Fig. 8 shows tray 71 in second position), extending at an angle from the second wall (Fig. 8, wall of card cage 51 facing the tray 71) between a vertical axis (vertical direction of Fig. 8) and a transverse axis (axis parallel to side surface 56 and orthogonal to vertical direction of Fig. 8). This arrangement allows optical fibers to be routed from the holes in the base and into the tray 71, and it allows for the fibers to be accessible while also preventing the optical fibers from bending to a degree beyond the minimum bend radius of the fibers (see col. 6, line 50-col. 7, line 15). The pivoting tray provides a benefit over the slidable drawer arrangement of Lapp because the fibers can be pulled away from the spine of the fiber closure so that they can be accessed, but the strain on the fibers near the base, where their movement is restricted, is less because of the ability of the tray to rotate from a pivot at the base. In order to reduce the strain on the fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Lapp device by allowing the tray to pivot from a base point rather than translate along the lateral axis, since Lapp also shows fibers extending into the tray from a base (see Fig. 22), based on the configuration taught by Allen.
Regarding claim 18: Modified Lapp teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 1, as applied above. In making the modification described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a hinge interface rotatably coupling the platform to the spine at the second wall, since Lapp shows the drawer being coupled to the second wall, and since hinge interfaces, such as those taught by Allen or those which appear to attach the holders to the splice cases in the Lapp device, are conventional in the art for providing pivotable attachments between two components.
Regarding claim 19: Modified Lapp teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 17 (as applied above), the spine comprising a tray retention member (Fig. 3, openings 47) positioned in a track (Fig. 3, legs 45) formed by the spine, the tray retention member configured to releasably attach the tray assembly to the spine (see paragraph 0054).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapp (US 2006/0029351; hereinafter Lapp) in view of Allen et al. (US Patent No. 5,261,024; hereinafter Allen) and further in view of Clark (US Patent No. 7,789,251; hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Lapp teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 1, as applied above. While Allen teaches a structure configured to retain the platform at the angel in the second position including corrugated ribs (Fig. 7, corrugations 75) and a T-shaped member (Fig. 7, second attaching member 82 and bottom end 83), flexible members configured for such a purpose are conventional. For example, Clark teaches that a chain means or similar member such as a cable, rope, string, or the like can prevent two panels joined by a hinge at the opposite end from the chain from sliding too far apart from each other. In the context of the modified Lapp fiber optic closure, providing a chain means, or a rope, cable, string, or the like, to the top of the platform, where the hinge is located at the bottom end of the platform near the base, would improve the safety of the modified Lapp device compared to a closure without such a flexible member, since it would fix a maximum angle by which the hinge could rotate and prevent the tray from falling on someone. To improve the safety of the rotatable platform, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a flexible member coupled to the spine and the platform, the flexible member configured to retain the platform at the angle in the second position (corresponding to a maximum opening angle as discussed above), since such features were well known and conventional.
Regarding claim 20: Modified Lapp teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 17, as applied above. While Allen teaches a structure configured to retain the platform at the angel in the second position including corrugated ribs (Fig. 7, corrugated ribs 75) and a T-shaped attaching member (Fig. 7, second attaching member 82 and bottom end 83), flexible members configured for such a purpose are conventional. For example, Clark teaches that a chain means or similar member such as a cable, rope, string, or the like can prevent two panels joined by a hinge at the opposite end from the chain from sliding too far apart from each other. In the context of the modified Lapp fiber optic closure, providing a chain means, or a rope, cable, string, or the like, to the top of the platform, where the hinge is located at the bottom end of the platform near the base, would improve the safety of the modified Lapp device compared to a closure without such a flexible member, since it would fix a maximum angle by which the hinge could rotate and prevent the tray from falling on someone. To improve the safety of the rotatable platform, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a flexible member coupled to the spine and the platform, the flexible member configured to retain the platform at the angle in the second position (corresponding to a maximum opening angle as discussed above), since such features were well known and conventional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allen et al. (US RE44,758 E) teaches spools in a fiber optic cabinet having a half-moon shape (see Fig. 2, spools 270).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights