CTNF 18/694,214 CTNF 100185 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 16, and 21-28 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. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the faceplate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A” faceplate was not mentioned in claim 1 or in the previous limitations of claim 16. It is not clear what “the faceplate” is referring to. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the channel" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A” channel was introduced prior to this recitation therefore it is not clear what “the channel” is referring to. Claims 22-28 rejected as they are dependent on claim 21 . Furthermore Claims 24 and 27 also recite “ the channel” which was never introduced, only “an internal cavity” is established. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the first connection feature" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A first connection arrangement” is established however no “first connection feature” was introduced prior to this recitation. It is not clear what “the first connection feature” is referring to. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, 14, 18-19, 21-23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Novak et al. [US 20230043799 A1] . Regarding Claim 1 , Novak discloses a mount housing (124, Fig 9) comprising: a body having an exterior surface and an open-ended channel (146, Fig 14) extending therethrough, the exterior surface having an exterior interface feature (cutouts 134 and back edges 138; see Figures 12 and 13) that interfaces with a mount opening framework (locating geometry 136 and latch 137) to retain the body within a mount opening (128) and the channel (146) including an interior interface feature (latch 144 of SPE coupler 116 locks into pocket 146 and support ribs 148 help hold) to retain a single pair Ethernet coupler (116) or a single pair Ethernet connector jack therewithin [0033]. Novak discloses a mount housing (16, Fig 1) comprising: a body having an exterior surface and an open-ended channel (channel/port allowing for insertion of SPE plugs 14, see Fig 1) extending therethrough, the exterior surface having an exterior interface feature (latches 48 and stop edges 50) that interfaces with a mount opening framework (designed to lock housing 16 to fixed modules) to retain the body within a mount opening (opening of the fixed module) and the channel including an interior interface feature (housing 16 is designed to meet the fixed connector dimensional criteria described in IEC 63171-1 which will allow for proper insertion of SPE plugs 14) to retain a single pair Ethernet coupler or a single pair Ethernet connector jack (14) therewithin. Regarding Claim 2 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Novak further discloses the mount housing (16) further comprises a metal spring beam (22). Regarding Claim 3 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 2, Novak further discloses the metal spring beam (22) interfaces with the exterior interface feature (tabs 46 and 52 is located on the exterior of the housing and tab 52 is specifically designed to “interact” with the fixed modules designed to secure housing 16, see [0028]. Regarding Claim 4 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 2, Novak further discloses a first portion (46) of the metal spring beam (22) is positioned at a recess (54) in the channel and a second portion (52) of the metal spring beam (22) is positioned atop a top face of the exterior surface. Regarding Claim 8 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Novak further discloses the exterior interface feature (latches 48 and stop edges 50) comprises one or more of a flexible latch, a ramped boss, a projection, and a flex tab. Regarding Claim 10 , Novak discloses a method of mounting a single Pair Ethernet coupler or connector jack (14) in a mount opening (opening of the fixed module), the method comprising: inserting the single pair Ethernet coupler or connector jack (14) into a mount housing (16), the mount housing (16) including an interior interface feature (housing 16 is designed to meet the fixed connector dimensional criteria described in IEC 63171-1 which will allow for proper insertion of SPE plugs 14) to removably retain the single pair Ethernet coupler or connector jack (14) within a channel of the mount housing (16); and inserting the mount housing (16) into a mount opening having a framework (features engaging with latches 48 and stop edges 50 to lock the housing 16 to the fixed module) about the mount opening (opening of the fixed module), the mount housing (16) including an exterior interface feature (latches 48 and stop edges 50) that interfaces with the framework to removably retain the mount housing (16) within the mount opening (opening of the fixed module). Regarding Claim 14 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Novak further discloses the exterior interface feature (latches 48 and stop edges 50) comprises one or more of a flexible latch, a ramped boss, a projection, and a flex tab. Regarding Claim 18 , Novak discloses a single pair Ethernet communication system (10, Fig 1) comprising: a coupler that couples a first single pair Ethernet free connector with a second single pair Ethernet free connector or a connector jack (14) that couples a single pair Ethernet free connector to a single pair Ethernet cable (12); a mount housing (16), the mount housing (16) including an exterior surface and an open- ended channel (channel/port allowing for insertion of SPE plugs 14, see Fig 1) that receives and removably retains the coupler or connector jack (114) therein; and a mount opening of a faceplate or panel module (opening of fixed modules where the housing 16 is secured), a framework (features engaging latches 48 and stop edges 52) positioned about the mount opening, the mount opening receiving the mount housing (16) and the framework interfacing with an exterior interface feature (latches 48 and stop edges 52) of the mount housing (16) to retain the mount housing (16) within the mount opening of the faceplate or panel module (fixed module). Regarding Claim 19 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 18, Novak further discloses the coupler or connector jack (14) are in a shielded configuration (being connected to a shielded cable 12) and wherein the faceplate or panel module (fixed module) is in a shielded configuration and wherein the mount housing (16) includes a metal spring beam (22) to establish a bonding path (via tabs 52; [0028]) between the coupler or connector jack (14) and the faceplate or panel module (fixed module). Regarding Claim 21 , Novak discloses a telecommunications adapter mount (16) comprising: a) a main body (18) defining an internal cavity (internal female ports) for receiving a telecommunications connector (14); b) a first connection arrangement (latches 48 and stop edges 50) located on an exterior portion of the main body (18) and being configured to removably secure the main body (18) within an opening (of fixed module), the first connection feature (latches 48 and stop edges 50) being one or more of a flexible latch, a ramped boss, a projection, and a flex tab; and c) a second connection arrangement (internal female port geometry compliant with IEC 63171-1, see [0028]) located within the internal cavity (internal female ports) and being configured to removably secure the telecommunications connector (14) within the channel (port). Regarding Claim 22 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Novak further discloses the telecommunications connector (14), wherein the telecommunications connector (14) is a single pair Ethernet coupler or connector jack. Regarding Claim 23 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Novak further discloses a forward face of the single pair Ethernet coupler or connector jack (14) extends beyond a forward face of the main body (18). Regarding Claim 27 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Novak further discloses a metal spring beam (22), the metal spring beam (22) configured to interface with the telecommunications connector (14 via tabs 46), which is in a shielded configuration, and to interface with a framework defining the opening (of fixed module, via taps 52), which is in a shielded configuration, to establish a bonding path between the telecommunications connector (14) and the framework (of fixed module) upon insertion of the telecommunications connector (14) into the channel (port) and upon insertion of the main body (18) in the opening (of fixed module) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 9, 11-12, 15, 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. [US 20230043799 A1] . Regarding Claim 5 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 4, Novak does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the metal spring beam exerts a normal force against an opposing surface. However, Novak discloses the tabs 46 come into contact with the plugs 14 to “create bonding throughout communications channel 10”, see [0026]; the tabs 52 is designed to interact with fixed modules designed to secure housing 16 in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the metal spring beam exerts a normal force against an opposing surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for metal tabs (46 and 52) to “create bonding” and maintain contact with mating plugs/modules the must be designed as a spring feature that exerts a normal force against those opposing surfaces, the cantilevered/spring-like features can be seen in Figures 3-4. Regarding Claim 9 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Novak further discloses the housing (16) is locked into “fixed modules”. Novak does not explicitly disclose the mount opening comprises at least one of a SL-series, a M-Series, or a Keystone mount opening of a faceplate or a panel module. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide the mount opening comprises at least one of a SL-series, a M-Series, or a Keystone mount opening of a faceplate or a panel module. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that SL-series, M-series, or a keystone mount opening are well-known in the industry for telecommunications faceplates and modules. The specification of the claimed invention acknowledges these as standard, alternative configurations to ensure compatibility with different existing hardware environments. Regarding Claim 11 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Novak further discloses the mount housing (16, Fig 5) includes stop edges 50 which are designed to interact with mounting framework to limit insertion depth of the housing 16 into the fixed modules. Novak does not explicitly disclose a forward face of the mount housing is flush with a forward surface defining the mount opening upon insertion of the mount housing in the mount opening. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide a forward face of the mount housing is flush with a forward surface defining the mount opening upon insertion of the mount housing in the mount opening. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the purpose of the “stop edges” in a panel/module-mount telecommunications component is to ensure the forward face of the device (the port opening) sits flush with the forward surface of the mounting panel or module. Figure 8 of D3 shows a different embodiment showing SPE components (118) mounted with telecommunications components (122, the panel). It can be seen that the forward faces of the modular housings are clearly shown to be flush with the forward face of the panel (122). Regarding Claim 12 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 11, Novak further discloses a forward face of the single pair Ethernet coupler or connector jack (14) extends beyond a forward face of the mount housing (16) upon insertion of the coupler or connector jack (14) in the channel of the mount housing (16). Regarding Claim 15 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Novak further discloses the housing (16) is locked into “fixed modules”. Novak does not explicitly disclose the mount opening comprises at least one of a SL-series, a M-Series, or a Keystone mount opening of a faceplate or a panel module. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide the mount opening comprises at least one of a SL-series, a M-Series, or a Keystone mount opening of a faceplate or a panel module. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that SL-series, M-series, or a keystone mount opening are well-known in the industry for telecommunications faceplates and modules. The specification of the claimed invention acknowledges these as standard, alternative configurations to ensure compatibility with different existing hardware environments. Regarding Claim 20 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 18, Novak does not explicitly disclose the interface between the mount housing (16) and the faceplate or panel module (fixed module) comprises at least one of an SL Series interface configuration, a Keystone interface configuration, and an M Series interface configuration. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide the mount opening comprises at least one of a SL-series, a M-Series, or a Keystone mount opening of a faceplate or a panel module. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that SL-series, M-series, or a keystone mount opening are well-known in the industry for telecommunications faceplates and modules. The specification of the claimed invention acknowledges these as standard, alternative configurations to ensure compatibility with different existing hardware environments. Regarding Claim 25 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Novak does not explicitly disclose the first connection arrangement provides at least one of an SL-Series interface configuration, a Keystone interface configuration, and an M-Series interface configuration. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide the mount opening comprises at least one of a SL-series, a M-Series, or a Keystone mount opening of a faceplate or a panel module. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that SL-series, M-series, or a keystone mount opening are well-known in the industry for telecommunications faceplates and modules. The specification of the claimed invention acknowledges these as standard, alternative configurations to ensure compatibility with different existing hardware environments . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 17, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. [US 20230043799 A1] in view of Su et al. [US 20130251376 A1] . Regarding Claim 6 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Novak does not explicitly disclose a dust cover to cover at least one end of the open-ended channel. However, Su discloses a housing (22) comprising a dust cover (25 including door 26) to cover at least one end of an open-ended channel. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak as suggested by Su to provide a dust cover to cover at least one end of the open-ended channel. The cover would serve to protect the housing interfaces from unwanted environmental conditions. Regarding Claim 17 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Novak does not explicitly disclose a dust cover to cover at least one end of the open-ended channel. However, Su discloses a housing (22) comprising a dust cover (25 including door 26) to cover at least one end of an open-ended channel. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak as suggested by Su to provide a dust cover to cover at least one end of the open-ended channel. The cover would serve to protect the housing interfaces from unwanted environmental conditions. Regarding Claim 28 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Novak does not explicitly disclose a dust shield mounted to a forward face of the main body. However, Su discloses a housing (22) comprising a dust shield (25 including door 26) mounted to a face of the main body (22). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak as suggested by Su to provide a dust shield mounted to a forward face of the main body. The cover would serve to protect the housing interfaces from unwanted environmental conditions . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 13, 16, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. [US 20230043799 A1] in view of Chen et al. [US 20060263011 A1] . Regarding Claim 7 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Novak further discloses the plugs 14 are retained in the housing 16 using standardized IEC 63171-1 criteria, see [0028]. Novak does not explicitly disclose the interior interface feature comprises a flex latch extending into the channel from an upper surface of the channel. However, Chen discloses internal protrusions (117, Fig 7) located specifically on the “upper inner surface” of the internal receiving channels (100, 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak as suggested by Chen to provide a flex latch extending into the channel from an upper surface of the channel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to place the retention mechanism of Novak on the upper interior surface as taught by Chen. Implementing this feature as a ”flex latch” rather than a rigid protrusion would be routine mechanical design choice, specifically inversion of the common plug-latch/catch system to achieve secure and removable retention of the connector. Regarding Claim 13 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Novak further discloses the plugs 14 are retained in the housing 16 using standardized IEC 63171-1 criteria, see [0028]. Novak does not explicitly disclose the interior interface feature comprises a flex latch extending into the channel from an upper surface of the channel. However, Chen discloses internal protrusions (117, Fig 7) located specifically on the “upper inner surface” of the internal receiving channels (100, 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak as suggested by Chen to provide a flex latch extending into the channel from an upper surface of the channel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to place the retention mechanism of Novak on the upper interior surface as taught by Chen. Implementing this feature as a ”flex latch” rather than a rigid protrusion would be routine mechanical design choice, specifically inversion of the common plug-latch/catch system to achieve secure and removable retention of the connector. Regarding Claim 16 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Novak further discloses the mount housing (16) includes a body (18) and wherein the method further comprises equipping the body (18) with a metal spring beam (22), the metal spring beam (22) interfacing with the single pair Ethernet coupler or connector jack (14, via tabs 46), which is in a shielded configuration, and interfacing (via tabs 52) with the framework of the faceplate (of fixed module), which is in a shielded configuration, to establish a bonding path between the coupler or connector jack (14) and the faceplate (of fixed module) upon insertion of the coupler or connector jack (14) into the mount housing (16) and upon insertion of the mount housing (16) in the opening of the faceplate (of the fixed module) [0026]. Novak does not explicitly disclose the mount housing includes a plastic body. However, Chen discloses a similar mount housing (26) including a plastic body (101) preferably made of polymeric material to accommodate easy insertion and removal of the plugs (22 and 24); see Figure 6A, [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide the mount housing including a plastic body as it would keep the housing durable while making it lightweight as recognized by Chen, see [0042]. Moreover the latches (48) of housing (16) body (18) disclose by Novak must be able to resiliently deflect to engage a framework and then snap back into their original shape, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use plastic material for the body which has the latches because it is a known material that provides the mechanical resiliency required for integrated latches taught by Novak. Regarding Claim 24 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Novak further discloses the plugs 14 are retained in the housing 16 using standardized IEC 63171-1 criteria, see [0028]. Novak does not explicitly disclose the second connection arrangement comprises a flex latch extending into the channel from an upper surface of the channel. However, Chen discloses internal protrusions (117, Fig 7) located specifically on the “upper inner surface” of the internal receiving channels (100, 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak as suggested by Chen to provide a flex latch extending into the channel from an upper surface of the channel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to place the retention mechanism of Novak on the upper interior surface as taught by Chen. Implementing this feature as a ”flex latch” rather than a rigid protrusion would be routine mechanical design choice, specifically inversion of the common plug-latch/catch system to achieve secure and removable retention of the connector. Regarding Claim 26 , Novak discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Novak does not explicitly disclose the main body is formed from a plastic material. However, Chen discloses a similar mount housing (26) including a plastic body (101) preferably made of polymeric material to accommodate easy insertion and removal of the plugs (22 and 24); see Figure 6A, [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novak to provide the mount housing including a plastic body as it would keep the housing durable while making it lightweight as recognized by Chen, see [0042]. Moreover the latches (48) of housing (16) body (18) disclose by Novak must be able to resiliently deflect to engage a framework and then snap back into their original shape, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use plastic material for the body which has the latches because it is a known material that provides the mechanical resiliency required for integrated latches taught by Novak. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm. 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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. /THASLIMUR RAHMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 2 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 3 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 4 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 5 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 6 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 7 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 8 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 9 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 10 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 11 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 12 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 13 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 14 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 15 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 16 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/694,214 Page 17 Art Unit: 2834
Prosecution Insights