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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on August 25, 2025 and May 1, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Twenty (20) sheets of drawings were filed on May 1, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 16-18 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 16; the claim recites the limitation "the terminal housing" in lines 9-10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 16 recites the limitation “a cable fixation module” in line 15, wherein “cable fixation modules” were previously defined in line 11 of the claim. Is the “a cable fixation module” in line 15 one of the “cable fixation modules” defined in line 11 or a different cable fixation module? Clarification is required.
Further, claim 16 recites the limitation “a fiber tube fixation module” in line 15 of the claim, wherein “fiber tube fixation modules” were previously defined in line 12 of the claim. Is this “a fiber tube fixation module” in line 15 one of the “fiber tube fixation modules” defined in line 12 or a different fiber tube fixation module? Clarification is required.
Claim 16 also defines “a bridge” in line 16 of the claim, however claim 18 requires that “the bridge is removed” in line 1 of the claim. Therefore it’s unclear if the bridge is required to be part of the claimed fiber optic enclosure system, since it’s not a part of the structure of the finished product if it is removed. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 17 and 18; dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 II. Since it’s unclear if the bridge is part of the claimed enclosure system, and if the claimed modules are the same previously recited modules or additional modules, claim(s) 16-18 have not been further treated with respect to prior art. Please note that this is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2013/0101262 A1), hereafter Wei, in view of Wenski et al. (US 6,181,861 B1), hereafter Wenski, and Peterson (US 2019/0204524 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Wei discloses a fiber optic enclosure system (see Figure 2A) comprising:
an enclosure (fiber optic cabinet 100) including
a telecommunication housing (housing 105) defining an interior,
the telecommunication housing (105) including a cable entrance location (port 114) at which a cable sealing arrangement (seal 115; sealing member, paragraph 32; sealing element, paragraph 33) is located for sealing about cables (50) routed through the cable entrance location (114) into the interior of the telecommunication housing (105),
the enclosure (100) including a cable fixation region (optical fiber termination block 140) located within the interior of the telecommunication housing (105).
Wei does not disclose:
a tube sealing unit for receiving fiber tubes adapted to receive fiber cables,
the tube sealing unit being located outside the telecommunication housing and
including a tube sealing housing defining a plurality of tube receiving locations each configured for receiving one of the fiber tubes,
the tube sealing unit also including sealant within the tube sealing housing for sealing the ends of the fiber tubes within the tube sealing housing.
Wei does teach that tubes (113; see paragraph 33 and Figure 2A) are provided to protect cables (50) entering ports (114).
Wenski teaches that an optical fiber enclosure (4; see Figure 1) may be connected to a fiber branching unit (3; see Figure 1) located outside the enclosure (4) for the purpose of routing a fiber branch cable (2) from a main fiber cable (1).
Peterson discloses a fiber branching, tube sealing unit (100; see Figure 2) for receiving fiber stubes (furcation tubes 118, conduit tube 104) adapted to receive fiber cables (fibers 220 are received in tubes 118, and a trunk cable of fibers is received in conduit 104), the tube sealing unit (100), including a tube sealing housing (102) defining a plurality of tube receiving locations (locations where tubes 118 and 104 are received) each configured for receiving one of the fiber tubes (118, 104), the tube sealing unit (100) also including sealant (sealant see paragraphs 7, 23, and 39) within the tube sealing housing (102) for sealing the ends of the fiber tubes (118, 104) within the tube sealing housing (102).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a tube sealing unit for receiving fiber tubes adapted to receive fiber cables, the tube sealing unit being located outside the telecommunication housing of Wei and including a tube sealing housing defining a plurality of tube receiving locations each configured for receiving one of the fiber tubes, the tube sealing unit also including sealant within the tube sealing housing for sealing the ends of the fiber tubes within the tube sealing housing for the purpose of branching out optical fibers to route selected optical fibers from a main optical fiber line to the enclosure taught by Wei.
Regarding claim 2; By providing the tube sealing unit of Peterson to route selected fibers to and into the enclosure of Wei, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would provide the fiber optic enclosure system of claim 1, wherein the fiber tubes (furcation tubes 118 taught by Peterson) have ends located within the tube sealing housing (102) that are sealed by the sealant (sealant; see paragraphs 7, 23, 39), wherein the fiber cables (220) extend through the fiber tubes (118) and out of the ends of the fiber tubes (118), wherein the fiber cables extend through the sealant and out of the tube sealing housing (102), wherein the fiber cables extend from the tube sealing housing (102 of Peterson) into the interior of the telecommunication housing (105 of Wei) through the cable sealing arrangement, and wherein the fiber cables are fixed relative to the telecommunication housing (105) at the cable fixation region (140 of Wei).
Regarding claims 3 and 4; Peterson further teaches that the tube receiving locations include fixation structures (furcation tube holder 190; see Figures 5A and 5B) for fixing the fiber tubes (118) relative to the tube sealing housing (102), wherein the fixation structures (190) include blades (302) configured to embed into the fiber tubes (118).
Regarding claims 5 and 15; By providing the tube sealing unit of Peterson to route selected fibers to and into the enclosure of Wei, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would provide protective tubes (118) that extend between the tube sealing housing (102 of Peterson) and the telecommunication housing (105 of Wei) for protecting portions of the fiber cables that extend between the tube sealing housing and the telecommunication housing, wherein the tube sealing unit is not supported by the terminal housing (Wenski teaches that the branching unit 3 is separate from the enclosure 4).
Regarding claim 6; Peterson teaches structure (190; see Figures 5A and 5B) for fixing the protective tubes with respect to the tube sealing housing (102).
Regarding claim 8; the protective tubes (118 of Peterson and/or 113 of Wei) each have a wrap-around configuration (the tubes wrap around, i.e. encircle, the optical fibers therein).
Regarding claims 9-13; Wei, Wenski, and Peterson teach and/or suggest the fiber optic enclosure system of claim 1 as applied above, wherein the tube sealing unit (100 of Peterson; see Figure 7) is supported by a wall (500), wherein the tube sealing unit (100) mounts to the wall (500) via a bracket (400), wherein the tube sealing unit (100) is a module, and wherein the bracket (400) defines a plurality of module mounting locations (see Figure 7 of Peterson), wherein a plurality of the tube sealing units (100) are concurrently mountable to the bracket (400; see the third configuration 800 at the bottom of Figure 7), wherein the tube sealing unit (100) and a cable fixation module (the rear portion of the tube sealing unit 100 forms a cable fixation module to which tube (conduit 104) is attached to fix a cable therein to the wall) are concurrently mountable to the bracket (400), but does not disclose that the wall is a wall of the telecommunication housing. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to mount the tube sealing unit (100) of Peterson via a bracket to a wall of the enclosure of Wei for the purpose of securing the tube sealing unit (100) with respect to the enclosure to maintain a stable position of the cables in a compact arrangement.
Regarding claim 14; The examiner takes Official notice that optical fiber cables are known to include a jacket, an optical fiber within a jacket and aramid yarn positioned within the jacket and that such cable structure is elementary in the optical fiber art. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide fiber cables, wherein each of the fiber cables includes a jacket, an optical fiber within the jacket and aramid yarn positioned within the jacket for the purpose of using readily available, standard optical fiber cables.
Claim 7 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2013/0101262 A1), hereafter Wei, in view of Wenski et al. (US 6,181,861 B1), hereafter Wenski, and Peterson (US 2019/0204524 A1), and further in view of Mullaney et al. (US 5,323,480), hereafter Mullaney.
Regarding claim 7; Wei, Wenski, and Peterson teach and/or suggest the fiber optic enclosure system of claim 5 as applied above, wherein the protective tubes are provided around optical fibers extending into the enclosure of Wei. Mullaney teaches that protective tubes (33) placed around optical fiber extending into an enclosure (30) should have greater flexibility for bending, since the tubes and fibers therein are bent when routing inside the enclosure (see Figure 1 and column 3, lines 59-68 of Mullaney). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide protective tubes having greater around the optical fibers extending into the enclosure of Wei for the purpose of allowing the tubes and fibers therein to be easily positioned within the enclosure and routed therein with bends as necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious the fiber optic enclosure system defined by claim 19, further comprising a tube arrangement including protective tubes for protecting portions of the fiber cables that extend between the tube sealing housing and the telecommunication housing, the protective tubes including lengths that extend between first tube ends and opposite second tube ends, the tube arrangement also including first and second fixation blocks molded over the protective tubes, the first and second fixation blocks being separated from one another by a spacing that coincides with at least a majority of the length of the protective tubes, the protective tubes including first end portions that project outwardly from the first fixation block to the first tube ends and the protective tubes including second end portions that project outwardly from the second fixation block to the second tube ends, the first tube ends being positioned adjacent to the cable sealing arrangement and the second tube ends being sealed within the tube sealing unit in alignment with the fiber tubes in combination with all of the limitations of base claim 1. Claims 20-24 depend from claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights