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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to include “snap connect” attachment for basket expansion. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2024/0248274 to Etheridge.
It is noted that there are no specifics that define the “snap-connect” function.
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.
The terms “snap connect”, “expand a size” and “increase … storage capacity” in claims 2 and 21is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. These terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The snap connect function does not limit or bound any number of structural methods for a snap connection via friction, clips, hooks, tabs, protrusions or any number of securing features. Similarly the claimed increase in size and capacity is boundless.
Remaining claims are rejected on the basis of dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 2-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/06144 to Claessens et al. in view of US 2017/0363831 to Cornnelissen et al.
Claessens discloses in figures 13-17, an optical fiber management assembly comprising:
A piece including, unitarily integrated therewith:
A baseplate (304) for mouning a portion of a cable jacket fixation subassembly (316) to the baseplate;
A basket for storing loops of fiber (322 area in figure 13) and
A fiber router (feeder 320) including a structure for mounting a fiber sheath holder module to the fiber router (via adapters 318), the fiber router being positioned between the baseplate and the basket.
As to claim 3, front side in figure 11 bypasses the rear portions.
As to claims 4 and 13, the structure shown in figure 4 enables pivoting.
As to claim 5, the trays can be considered second pieces and baseplates that “snappingly” mount to the pivot structure.
As to claim 6, additional “sheath holding modules” defined as claimed in figure 15.
As to claim 7, the first and second pieces are on opposing sides and utilizing the pivot “tower” shown in figure 4, enables snap-fitting.
As to claim 8, a third piece enables the use of seal blocks (figure 9).
As to claim 9, guide walls (unlabeled at F1; figure 13) and slack organizers (315) with routing paths through plurality of access portions.
As to claim 11, the fiber loop retainer is not structurally defined and therefore could be constituted by any number of internal components of the prior art.
As to claim 12, a tray is disclosed (350).
It is noted that Applicant does not define the “fiber loop module”. Any spool or even routing with tabs would meet this limitation.
However, Claessons fails to disclose the basket expansion piece configured to snap connect to the basket and expand the size to increase loop storage capacity. It is noted that no structure is disclose to define the snap function, nor is there a defined range for the expansion of size or storage capacity.
Cornelissen discloses in figures 12-13 a “snap connect” expansion piece that snap connects to a base of a tray storage pocket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add additional expansion trays and/or snap connect features to a base basket to increase capacity.
Claim(s) 14-17, and 19-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claessens in view of Cornelisson.
Classens in view of Cornelisson discloses the invention as claimed except for recitation of specific routing paths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select routing paths, associated materials and removable components to allow for ease of use.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights