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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments traversing the Election/Restriction based on Unity of Invention of May 4, 2026, have been fully considered and are found to be convincing. The Election/Restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn and claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The claims describe a “mounting point position” which is related to the base plate and specifically to the sides of the base plate. The “mounting point position” is not specifically labeled in the drawings. Figure 12 shows feature 111 labeled “a sliding groove” is a part of the “mounting point position”, so it appears that the “mounting point position” is in a region near features 111, but since the “mounting point position” is separately claimed, it should be clearly labeled in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Also, the optical fiber beam penetrating hole of the protective bracket of claim 6 should be shown. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 reads “a base plate (1), two opposite sides of which”. This statement does not definitively say that the “two opposite sides” belong to the “base plate”. Customarily a word like “comprising” or “having” is used to indicate that one physical element is a portion of another physical element, such as “a base plate having/comprising two opposite sides…”. As written it is unclear if the “two opposite sides” are a portion of the previously recited “base plate” or if they are a separate physical element.
Further the claimed “sides” (presumably of the base plate) are referred to by the terms “two opposite sides”, “either side” and “different sides” in claim 1. These two elements should be given a single consistent label throughout the claims.
Claim 1 recites “a bracket (2), which is detachably mounted at the mounting point position on either side of the base plate” and later “when the bracket is mounted at the mounting point positions on different sides”. The first phrase requires that the bracket is mounted to a single side of the base plate (one of the two opposite sides). The second phrase is conditional on “when” some event is present, namely the bracket is mounted at the mounting point positions on different sides”. It is unclear what structure is being described when these two phrases are read together. On which side is the bracket mounted according to the claim?
Claim 1 reads “the optical fiber channel tray is reversed along with the bracket”. This phrase seems to recite an action (or method step) rather than physical structure. It is unclear what physical structure is being described by this functional/method step limitation.
Claim 2 introduces “opposite sides of the central axis”. It is unclear how these “opposite sides” relate to the “two opposite sides”, “either side” or “different sides” recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the step of removing the bracket and the optical fiber channel tray from the mounting point position on “one side of the base plate”. Claim 1 does not describe the bracket and optical fiber channel tray as mounted on the mounting point position of “one side of the base plate”. Claim 13 also uses the term “the other side of the base plate”, which is language not used in claim 1. The terminology used in claim describing the relationship between the bracket and the two mounting point positions (one on each of the “two opposite sides”) is unclear as explained in the above rejections. The terminology of claim 13 should be consistent with claim 1, so that it is clear what method steps are being performed in claim 13.
The preamble of claim 13 is “A method for reversing the optical fiber distribution sub-frame” and the preamble of claims 14-17 is “The reversing method according to claim 13”. Each of these claims should recite the same preamble so that it is clear that the dependent claims are further limiting the same method recited in the independent claim.
Claim 17, “the two fiber storage areas” lack antecedent basis. Claim 17 also includes two steps, one requiring removing a fixing module and another requiring replacing the fixing modules. It is unclear how these two steps together further limit the claim, as the second step un-does the first step, resulting in no change.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the their parent claims and are also rejected under this section.
For prior art examination, the examiner has used the specification and drawings showing that the bracket 2 may mount to either the right side or left side of the base plate 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,418,264 B1, in view of Vermeulen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0341222 A1 and Ruda, EP 3825746 A1.
With regard to claim 1, in figs. 3-15, Hough discloses an optical fiber distribution sub-frame- comprising; a base plate 28, a bracket 34, which is detachably mounted at the mounting point position on a side of the base plate 28; and an optical fiber channel tray 14, which is hinged to the bracket 34 (via boss 80/slot 82) (col. 4, line 60 to col. 7, line 36).
Hough does not expressly disclose that the bracket is mountable to both the right side and left side of the base plate such that the hinge mechanism can be mounted either on the right side or left side. Vermeulen, in fig. 2, teaches a similar hinged bracket/tray hinged mechanism, where the hinge mechanism may be mounted either on the right side or left side. Ruda, in figs. 1-17, also teaches a similar hinged bracket/tray hinged mechanism, where the hinge mechanism maybe mounted on either the right side or left side. Based on the teachings of Vermeulen and Ruda, one skilled in the art can change the side of the hinge mechanism of Hough by moving the bracket from the right side to the left side, thereby changing the side of the hinge, to provide more flexible mounting options for the fiber distribution tray. It would be within the skill of one skilled in the art to redesign and/or rearrange the physical mounting and cable mounting features accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the side of the hinge in Hough, as taught by Vermeulen and Ruda, by designing the bracket to be mounted on either side of the base plate, to provide more flexible mounting options for the fiber distribution tray.
With regard to claim 2, in the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame described in the rejection of claim 1, the base plate would be symmetrically arranged about a central axis thereof, and the mounting point positions are symmetrically distributed on opposite sides of the central axis, to allow he bracket to be mounted on either the right side or left side.
With regard to claim 3, in figs. 3-15, Hough discloses that the bracket 34 is provided with a sliding buckle 88, the mounting point position is provided with a sliding groove 94, and the bracket 34 and the base plate 28 are detachably connected through the sliding buckle 88 and the sliding groove 94 (col. 4, line 60 to col. 7, line 36).
With regard to claim 4, in figs. 3-15, Hough discloses that the bracket 34 is further provided with a first limiting part 96, the mounting point position is provided with a second limiting part 98 correspondingly, the first limiting part 96 matches with the second limiting part 98 to limit the position, an extension direction of the first limiting part 96 is different from that of the sliding buckle 88, and a limiting direction of the sliding buckle 88 to the base plate 28 is at least partially different from that of the first limiting portion 96 to the base plate 28 (col. 4, line 60 to col. 7, line 36).
With regard to claim 5, in figs. 3-15, Hough discloses that the optical fiber channel tray 14 and the bracket 34 are detachably hinged together by means of locking screws 80 (col. 4, line 60 to col. 7, line 36).
With regard to claims 6, 7 and 12, the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame described in the rejection of claim 1, meets all of the limitations of the parent claim, however it does not expressly disclose fiber channels in the bracket itself.
Hough shows the fiber channels 47 and 48 in the tray 14, as well as in the base plate at 100. One skilled in the art would understand that channels could be in the bracket in addition, or in an alternative arrangement, so long as they fiber cables are securely held as they are routed onto the tray and base plate.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention where the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame described in claim 1, further has the bracket provided with a first fiber penetrating channel, the first fiber penetrating channel is configured for an optical fiber to enter the base plate, the bracket is further provided with a protective pressure strip blocking one side of the first fiber penetrating channel; and the bracket is further provided with a protective bracket, the protective bracket is arranged in the first fiber penetrating channel, and the protective bracket is provided with an optical fiber beam penetrating hole; and where the two opposite sides of the base plate are each provided with an optical fiber perforation, and the optical fiber perforations communicate with the first fiber penetrating channel; and two side surfaces of the base plate provided with the optical fiber perforations extend obliquely in a direction approaching each other, so that a distance between the optical fiber perforations on the two sides is smaller than a maximum distance between surfaces of the two side surfaces, and the bracket is detachably mounted with a supporting member, and the supporting member is provided with a jumper outlet, as an additional or alternative arrangement so that the fiber cables are securely held as they are routed onto the tray and base plate.
With regard to claims 8-10, the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame described in the rejection of claim 1, meets all of the limitations of the parent claim. Hough does not expressly teach an adapter assembly. Ruda, in figs. 10 and 11, teach optical fiber adapters 142 on the base plate, to allow for connection to an optical fiber network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention integrate the optical fiber adapters of Ruda into the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame described in rejection claim 1 such that the optical fiber distribution sub-frame further comprises an adapter assembly, and the adapter assembly comprises: an adapter bracket, which is detachably connected to the base plate; and an adapter, which is arranged obliquely relative to the adapter bracket, and the adapter is detachably clamped to the adapter bracket; and the adapter bracket is provided with at least one mounting window, each mounting window is provided with at least two adapter mounting positions, the adapter bracket is provided with a clamping structure that matches with the adapter corresponding to each adapter mounting position; and the adapter bracket is further provided with an elastic arm, the clamping structure located at one end of the mounting window is provided on the elastic arm, and when the elastic arm is shifted, all the adapters in the mounting window corresponding to the elastic arm are unlocked; and the adapter bracket comprises a frame and a support plate arranged in the frame, the support plate separates the frame into at least two of the mounting windows, and one end of the support plate is spaced apart from an inner wall of the frame to form a receiving space, and this end of the support plate is connected to the frame by means of connecting rods, each connecting rod is provided with two of the elastic arms, the elastic arms are all received in the receiving space, and the elastic arms correspond one-to-one with the mounting windows, to allow for connection to an optical fiber network.
With regard to claim 11, the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame described in the rejection of claim 1, meets all of the limitations of the parent claim. Hough does not expressly teach the fiber storage as claimed.
Ruda, in figs. 10 and 11, teach two fiber storage areas 134 are symmetrically arranged in the base plate, a fiber splicing area 150 is arranged between the two fiber storage areas 134, fixing modules are symmetrically arranged in the base plate corresponding to entrances of the fiber storage areas, and the fixing modules are detachably connected to the base plate, to provide all of the storage and function needed to splice cables to connect to adapters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Ruda storage/spice features into the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame to provide all of the storage and function needed to splice cables to connect to adapters.
With regard to claims 13-17, the modified Hough/Vermeulen/Ruda optical fiber sub-frame described in the rejection of claim 1, describes a reversable (hinge positionable on right side or left side), by moving the bracket to the right side or left side of the base plate. The method claimed in claims 13 to 17 is an obvious method of using such an apparatus. Therefore, for the same reasons explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to conduct the method including: removing the bracket together with the optical fiber channel tray from the mounting point position on one side of the base plate; and reversibly mounting the bracket to the mounting point position on the other side of the base plate, and making the optical fiber channel tray follow a reversal of the bracket; and further the step before removing the bracket together with the optical fiber channel tray from the mounting point position on one side of the base plate, the method further comprises: unlocking and removing the adapter assembly from the base plate, wherein the adapter assembly comprises an adapter bracket and an adapter; removing the adapter from the adapter bracket; and reversing the adapter bracket and remounting the adapter; and the step of removing the adapter from the adapter bracket (41) comprises: shifting the elastic arm on the adapter bracket to unlock and remove the first adapter in each set of adapters from the adapter bracket; and sliding to remove the remaining adapters; and the step after removing the bracket together with the optical fiber channel tray from the mounting point position on one side of the base plate, the method further comprises: reversing the a protective pressure strip and a protective bracket on the bracket; and the step after removing the bracket together with the optical fiber channel tray from the mounting point position on one side of the base plate, the method further comprises: removing the fixing modules at the entrances of the two fiber storage areas in the base plate; and replacing the fixing modules at the entrances of the two fiber storage areas in the base plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kiesha R Bryant can be reached at (571)272-3606. 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.
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
