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.
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. Therefore, the device having both a mount platform and an adapter mount, and a first and second mount platform with a shared retainer wall extending along the perimeter of each must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 1-20 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 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more organizer trays”, and the claim goes on to recite “the organizer tray”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the organizer tray” due to the claim previously defining one or more organizer trays. For the purpose of examination “the organizer tray” is interpreted as “the one or more organizer trays”.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 also defines “a plurality of module mounting locations”, followed by “the module mounting location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the module mounting location”. For the purpose of examination, “the module mounting location” is interpreted as “one of the module mounting locations”.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 also recites “the mount location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the mount location the module mounting location or a different location? For the purpose of examination, “the mount location” is interpreted as referring to one of “the plurality of module mounting locations”
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 defines one or more organizer trays having tray main bodies. The tray main bodies are required by the claim to have module mounting locations. The organizer assemblies are claimed to further comprise mount platforms (having a platform base and a platform leg), which are not directly claimed to be mounted/mountable/removably attachable to the tray main bodies (having base walls and a plurality of leg slots) at module mounting locations, but are suggested to be by the language “wherein the platform base forms a wall configured substantially flush to the base wall, and wherein the platform leg is insertable into corresponding leg slots”. This language is confusing for several reasons. First, it is unclear how one platform leg is insertable into multiple corresponding leg slots. Rather, it is understood from the disclosure that the platform leg is insertable into a corresponding leg slot. Furthermore, the platform base is claimed to be configured substantially flush to the base wall, suggesting it is mounted to the tray main body in the claimed configuration, but the platform leg is claimed to be “insertable into corresponding leg slots”, suggesting that even after the mounting platform is mounted to the tray, its leg is insertable into a corresponding leg slot. This is contrary to the disclosure, which describes a device which has a platform base that becomes substantially flush to the base wall only when the platform leg is inserted into the corresponding leg slot. For the purpose of examination, “corresponding leg slots” is interpreted as “a corresponding leg slot”, the “insertable” limitation is understood to describe how a mount platform is mounted to a tray main body, and the “substantially flush” limitation is interpreted as describing the configuration when a mount platform is already mounted to a tray main body.
Regarding claim 1: “the mount platform comprising a retainer wall extending along the transverse axis from an upper surface of the platform base” is unclear because the mount platform is claimed as part of an organizer tray which are claimed to be “rotatably connectable” to a plurality of hinge assemblies at a bracket assembly, and the transverse axis is defined with respect to the bracket assembly. The claim does not require the mount platform to be connected to the bracket assembly at all, let alone connected and oriented in any particular way with respect to the bracket assembly, so the transverse axis is not clearly defined for the mount platform. For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers that any axis can be considered the transverse axis due to the ability to rotate the mount platform relative to the bracket assembly.
Regarding claim 3: “the one or more organizer trays comprising a retainer tab extending from the first sidewall, the second sidewall, or the front wall, and wherein the retainer tab forms a detent along the transverse axis to the telecommunications module mountable to the organizer tray” is unclear for several reasons. First, the “transverse axis” is not clearly defined for similar reasons to those stated in point (e), with the transverse axis of the telecommunications module not being clearly defined. Second, “the organizer tray” lacks proper antecedent basis because the claim itself refers to a retainer tab included in “the one or more organizer trays”. Is there a single retainer tab for multiple organizer trays or one retainer tab for each organizer tray of the one or more organizer trays? For the purpose of examination, either interpretation is understood to be included in the claim language.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, respectively: It is unclear what is meant by “the retainer wall extends substantially along a perimeter of the platform base” and “wherein the retainer wall is configured to affix the telecommunications module within a platform interior formed by the retainer wall extending substantially along the perimeter of the platform base”, respectively. It is unclear whether “substantially along a perimeter” means that it substantially surrounds the entire perimeter or it extends substantially along the edge with some points where the wall comes in or out an insignificant distance from the edge, but doesn’t have to extend substantially around the entire perimeter. While one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to determine the scope of the second interpretation, the first interpretation would require further clarification as to the requisite degree of substantially. The term “substantially” may therefore be considered a relative term in the present claim, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is 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, since if a wall has an opening it is categorically distinct from a wall without an opening, so any opening could be understood by someone in the art to be substantially different from a device having the condition fully met. On the other hand, another in the art could consider a wall with a small opening to be substantially the same. Therefore, there is not a clear standard in the art for evaluating this limitation. For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean that the wall extends at least for some distance along or very near to at least one outer edge of the platform base.
Regarding claim 9: It is unclear what is meant by “an opening through which a telecommunications port of the telecommunications module is extendable”. First, this appears to be using the term “port” in a manner that is inconsistent with its accepted meaning, which is an interface, which is a surface, or a socket, which is a negative space, whereas in the claim it appears to be referring to protrusions such as “ports” 310 in Fig. 8 of the disclosure. Second, “extendable” is also being used in a manner inconsistent with its accepted meaning, since it usually means “can be made longer”, whereas in this case it means something like “has a structure which is capable of extending across”. For the purpose of examination, “port” is interpreted to mean any structure which has an interface or socket for connection at the end, and “extendable” is interpreted to mean “has a structure which is capable of extending across”.
Regarding claim 11: It is unclear how the mount platform comprises a first mount platform and a second platform, both comprising the retainer wall extending along the perimeter. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that the mount platform of claim 1 is a first mount platform, wherein the retainer wall extends along the perimeter and is configured as a first bound along the second direction; and wherein the fiber optic closure further comprises a second platform comprising a second retainer wall extending along the perimeter and configured as a second bound separated along the second direction from the first bound.
Regarding claim 12: It is unclear how the adapter mount is able to be connected to the same mount location as the mount platform with the mount legs insertable into the same corresponding leg slots as the platform leg. Furthermore, this claim suffers from similar deficiencies to point (d) and is interpreted in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 14-15: It is unclear what is meant by “the adapter mount comprising a post forming a channel at which the mount wall is received at an opening at the mount wall.” A post is understood to be a protrusion whereas a channel is understood to describe a hole or opening, so it is unclear how a post forms a channel. Additionally, “at which the mount wall is received at an opening at the mount wall” is unclear because it is essentially a circular statement. How can a mount wall be received at an opening at the mount wall? The scope of claims 14 and 15 are therefore unclear based on this unclear claim language. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
… 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. … 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.
Therefore, claims 14-15 have not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16: It is also unclear what is meant by “wherein extension of the slot corresponds to an orientation of the mount wall parallel, perpendicular, or oblique to a perimeter of the mount base.” A perimeter is a closed shape and necessarily includes parts with different orientations. Therefore, it is unclear how one can define parallel, perpendicular, or oblique with respect to a perimeter. Since the claim allows for any angle with respect to a perimeter, any orientation of the slot extension is considered to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites “wherein the mount wall comprises a base portion extending along the platform base, and wherein a positioning tab extends from the base portion into a slot formed at the platform base”. It is unclear what structural relationship between the mount platform and the adapter mount allows the mount wall to have a portion extending along the platform base. Does applicant mean the mount base? For the purpose of examination, “platform base” is interpreted to mean “mount base”.
Regarding claims 2-20: Claims 2-20 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
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 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 2016/0238811; hereinafter Simmons) in view of Bryon et al. (US 2023/0085572; hereinafter Bryon).
Regarding claim 1: Simmons disclosesA fiber optic closure (Fig. 1, enclosure 20) the closure comprising: a cover (Fig. 1, housing 24) forming a closure interior and an opening providing access to the closure interior; and an organizer assembly (Fig. 1, all parts except for the housing 24) insertable into the closure interior.
Simmons further discloses
one or more organizer trays (Figs. 1-3b, organizer trays 100; Fig. 6, organizer tray 200) comprising a tray main body (best represented in Fig. 3a, tray body 101; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6), the tray main body comprising a base wall (best represented in Fig. 3a, base 102; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6), a first sidewall (best represented in Fig. 3a, part of sidewall 108 along the left side of the tray body shown in Fig. 3a and corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6; examiner notes that first sidewall, second sidewall, front wall, and rear wall are given their BRI in light of the disclosure, and at least Fig. 4 of the present disclosure shows the first sidewall 206, the second sidewall 208, and the front wall 210 being a continuous sidewall structure, which matches the configuration disclosed by Simmons), a second sidewall (best represented in Fig. 3a, part of sidewall 108 along the right side of the tray body shown in Fig. 3a and corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6), and a front wall (Fig. 3a, part of sidewall 108 along the top end of tray body 101 shown in Fig. 3a and corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6), and a rear wall forming an open end (Fig. 3a, end wall 109 and corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6) and the front wall forming a closed end (the relied upon figures show this, since the front wall extends to the first and second sidewalls continuously), wherein the base wall comprises a plurality of module mounting locations (best represented in Fig. 3a, areas including zones 130a-b and extending to the openings 133; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6), the module mounting location comprising a plurality of leg slots (best represented in Fig. 3a, openings 133; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3b, and 6) and one or more positioning slots (some of the openings 133 shown in Fig. 3a and corresponding figures are considered positioning slots; alternatively, mounting holes shown in Figs. 1-3b near the center of the zones 130a-b or 230 in Fig. 6) defined through the base wall, wherein the plurality of leg slots form at least a portion of a periphery of the module mounting location (Figs. 1-3b and 6 show this);
a mount platform (Fig. 5a, repositionable mezzanine 180; as applied to claims 8-10, also including optical component inserts 175; corresponding structures in Fig. 2; as applied to claim 4, stacked assembly of repositionable mezzanines 180) comprising a platform base (Fig. 5a, heel 185a; corresponding structures in Fig. 2; as applied to claim 4, Figs. 5a-6b surfaces 182 of stacked mezzanine form a multilayer platform base) and a platform leg (Fig. 5a, toe 185b; corresponding structures in Fig. 2; as applied to claim 4, Fig. 5a, legs 184 of bottom mezzanine 180) extending from the platform base, wherein the platform base forms a wall configured substantially flush to the base wall (see paragraph 0050 and Fig. 4c; corresponding structures in Fig. 2; as applied to claim 4, the platform base is considered to be substantially flush to the base wall, since it is close to contacting the base wall and lies parallel to it), and wherein the platform leg is insertable into corresponding leg slots at the mount location (see paragraph 0050 and Fig. 4c; corresponding structures in Fig. 2; as applied to claim 4, corresponding structures in Fig. 6), the mount platform comprising a retainer wall extending along the transverse axis from an upper surface of the platform base (Fig. 4c, leg 184 and interlocking features 183; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, 6; alternatively, surface panel 182, is a retainer wall extending along a transverse axis from an upper surface of the platform base, along with corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, and 6), wherein the retainer wall extends along a first direction to form a detent for a telecommunications module mountable to the organizer tray (Fig. 5a, interlocking features 183 extend upward to form a detent for a second mezzanine 180, which is considered part of a telecommunications module mountable to the organizer tray’ alternatively, surface panel 182 extends upward to form catches 186, considered to be detents for a telecommunications module mountable to the organizer tray; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, 6) , wherein the detent is along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (the detent formed by interlocking features 183 is along the horizontal directions/the long axis of the surface panel 182; alternatively, the detent formed by catches 186 is along the horizontal direction/the short axis of the surface panel 182; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, 6).
Simmons further teaches that the organizer assembly comprises a support frame (40) to which the organizer trays are rotatably connectable and removable to each other within the closure (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0039). Simmons fails to teach that the organizer assembly comprisesa bracket assembly extending along a transverse axis, the bracket assembly comprising a main body and a plurality of hinge assemblies, wherein the plurality of hinge assemblies is spaced apart in a linear array along the transverse axis; and fails to teach that the one or more organizer trays are rotatably connectable and removable to a respective one of the plurality of hinge assemblies at the bracket assembly.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Bryon, also related to fiber optic closure assemblies with organizer assemblies (see Figs. 17 and 50), taught a fiber optic closure (Fig. 50 and paragraph 0068), having an organizer assembly (Fig. 17 and the assembly of Fig. 17 shown in Fig. 50 as part of the closure) comprising a bracket assembly (Fig. 17, assembly 300) extending along a transverse axis (Fig. 17, axis 344), the bracket assembly comprising a main body (Figs. 17 and 50, tower 102) and a plurality of hinge assemblies (see paragraph 0091), wherein the plurality of hinge assemblies is spaced apart in a linear array along the transverse axis (Fig. 17 shows this), and that one or more organizer trays are rotatably connectable and removable to a respective one of the plurality of hinge assemblies at the bracket assembly (Fig. 17, trays 304). In order to better secure the organizer trays to the support structure within the enclosure and to be able to remove trays at the bottom or middle of the stack without having to disassemble the entire stack, 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 Simmons device by substituting the hinge assemblies connecting the plurality of trays with a tower with a linear array of hinge assemblies to which the organizer trays are individually rotatable, connectable, and removable, based on the Bryon teaching.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the mount platform is removably mountable to the organizer tray at the platform leg (see Simmons paragraph 0050, the foot portion allows the mounting platform to be repositionable, i.e. removably mountable), and wherein the retainer wall at the mount platform forms a removable detent for the telecommunications module (see paragraph 0052, the projection 183 is a removable detent; alternatively, the insert catches 186 also form removable detents, as they at least form a grip on the optical component that can be removed, see Simmons paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 2 (as applied above), the one or more organizer trays comprising a retainer tab extending from the first sidewall, the second sidewall, or the front wall, and wherein the retainer tab forms a detent along the transverse axis to the telecommunications module mountable to the organizer tray (Simmons Fig. 3a, tabs 118; see also Simmons paragraph 0037, which discloses the retainer tab forming a detent to the telecommunications module mountable to the organizer tray; Examiner notes that “transverse axis” is not limiting because the organizer trays are removably and rotatably connectable to the bracket assemblies which define the transverse axis, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), the mount platform comprising: an opening formed through the platform base (Simmons Fig. 1, space between structures 183 and 186 form an opening in the platform base). Simmons further teaches that the platform base comprises a cantilevered arm (any of the legs 184 extending from the top mezzanine is considered to be a cantilevered arm) extending into the opening formed through the platform base (Simmons Fig. 5b shows this), wherein the cantilevered arm is configured to insert into the positioning slot at the module mount location to selectively affix the mount platform to the organizer assembly (since the legs of every mezzanine fit into the positioning slots, the device is fully capable of having the cantilevered arm inserted into the positioning slot at the module mounting location to selectively affix the mount platform to the organizer assembly).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the telecommunications module is mountable to the organizer tray between the first side wall, the second side wall, the front wall, and the retainer wall at the mount platform (see, e.g., Simmons Fig. 2, which shows a retainer wall 186 on the mount platform nearest to the back wall; telecommunications modules are mountable to the organizer tray between the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the front wall, and this retainer wall).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the retainer wall extends substantially along a perimeter of the platform base (see Simmons Figs. 4a and 5a, the retainer walls 183 and 186 extend substantially along a perimeter of the platform base).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 6 (as applied above), wherein the retainer wall is configured to affix the telecommunications module within a platform interior formed by the retainer wall extending substantially along the perimeter of the platform base (see Simmons Figs. 2 and 6; the retainer walls 183 and 186 are configured to affix optical component inserts 175 and 275 within a platform interior formed by the retainer wall extending substantially along the perimeter of the platform base).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 6 (as applied above), the mount platform comprising: a platform sidewall (Fig. 2, holders for optical components on the optical component inserts 175a-c) comprising a sidewall segment (Simmons Fig. 2, the holders comprise sidewall segments that affix fibers or other optical components that are part of a mountable telecommunications module) configured to affix the telecommunications module along the second direction (see Simmons Fig. 2, optical component insert 175 sidewalls form grooves for holding optical fibers, constraining them along the second direction).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 8 (as applied above), wherein the platform sidewall forms an opening (see Simmons Fig. 2, inserts 175a-c, the sidewalls on the left and right side of the inserts form openings for holding optical fibers) through which a telecommunications port of the telecommunications module is extendable (the optical fibers would be considered to be telecommunications ports of the telecommunications module, and fibers are extendable through the openings).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 9 (as applied above), wherein the opening at the platform sidewall is formed between sidewall segments (Simmons Fig. 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the mount platform comprises: a first mount platform comprising the retainer wall extending along the perimeter and configured as a first bound along the second direction (see Simmons Figs. 4a and 5a, the retainer wall 186 extends substantially along a perimeter of the platform base; corresponding structure in Simmons Fig. 2 , 180a); and a second platform comprising a second retainer wall extending along the perimeter and configured as a second bound separated along the second direction from the first bound (Simmons Fig. 2, the retainer wall 186 of 180b is a second bound separated along the second direction, the direction of the short axis of the surface of the mount platforms 182, from the first bound, i.e. the retainer wall 186 of 180a).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 11 (as applied above), comprising: an adapter mount (Simmons Fig. 5a, repositionable mezzanine 180; corresponding structures in Fig. 2; examiner notes that the cited structure reads on both the claimed mount platform and the adapter mounts, and the Simmons device includes a plurality of repositionable mezzanines 180, so one can be called an adapter mount while other are called mount platforms) comprising a mount base (Simmons Fig. 5a, heel 185a; corresponding structures in Fig. 2) and a mount leg (Simmons Fig. 5a, toe 185b; corresponding structures in Fig. 2) extending from the mount base, wherein the mount base forms a wall configured substantially flush to the base wall (see Simmons paragraph 0050 and Fig. 4c; corresponding structures in Fig. 2), and wherein the mount leg is insertable into corresponding leg slots at the mount location (see Simmons paragraph 0050 and Fig. 4c; corresponding structures in Fig. 2), the adapter mount comprising a mount wall (Simmons Fig. 4c, leg 184 and interlocking features 183; corresponding structures in Simmons Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, 6; alternatively, surface panel 182, is a mount wall, along with corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, and 6) forming one or more adapter openings configured to receive a telecommunications adapter (Simmons Fig. 5a, interlocking features 183 extend upward to form openings for a second mezzanine 180, which is considered part of a telecommunications adapter mountable to the organizer tray’ alternatively, surface panel 182 extends upward to form catches 186, considered to be openings for a telecommunications adapter mountable to the organizer tray; corresponding structures in Simmons Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, 6).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 12 (as applied above), wherein the mount wall is integrally formed to the mount base (Simmons Figs. 4a and 5a show that structures 183 and 186 are integrally formed to the mount base).
Regarding claim 16: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 12 (as applied above), wherein the mount base forms a slot (as shown in Simmons Fig. 4a, the mount base 185a has a shape including a concavity, which is interpreted as a slot extending through the mount base; as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is unclear how to measure an angle with respect to a perimeter of the mount base, but whatever angle it makes with said perimeter, it will necessarily be parallel, perpendicular, or oblique as these are the only possibilities) extending through the mount base, wherein extension of the slot corresponds to an orientation of the mount wall parallel, perpendicular, or oblique to a perimeter of the mount base.
Regarding claim 17: Modified Simmons teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 12, as applied above. In another embodiment, Simmons discloses an adapter mount (Simmons Fig. 13d) comprising a mount base (Simmons Fig. 13d, base 571) and a mount leg (Simmons Fig. 13d, screw attached to the mount base which attaches the mount base to the tray, corresponding to 571b in Fig. 13a) extending from the mount base, wherein the mount base forms a wall configured substantially flush to the base wall (Simmons Fig. 13d, structure corresponding to 571a in Fig. 13a), and wherein the mount leg is insertable into corresponding leg slots at the mount location (see Simmons paragraph 0077 and Fig. 13d), the adapter mount comprising a mount wall (Simmons Fig. 13d, 574’) forming one or more adapter openings configured to receive a telecommunications adapter (Fig. 13d shows this). The adapter mount comprising a post (Simmons Fig. 13d, screw attached to 574’) extending from a substantially central position from a mount base (Simmons Fig. 13d, 571), wherein the post comprises a latch (Simmons Fig. 13d, the top portion of the screw forms a latch) configured to releasably couple to a mount wall (Simmons Fig. 13d, 574’), wherein the mount wall comprises a sleeve to couple around the post (Simmons Fig. 13d, hole in 574’ to couple around the screw is considered a sleeve). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art use this as the adapter mount in the embodiments of Figs. 1-3b and 6, in combination with the platform mount, as applied above. Doing so would allow an organizer tray to organize a greater variety of telecommunications modules, in applications where it is desirable to do so.
Regarding claim 18: Modified Simmons teaches the fiber optic closure of claim 17 (as applied above), the adapter mount comprising a mount base (Simmons Fig. 13d, 571), the mount wall comprises a base portion (corresponding to the structure shown in Simmons Fig. 13a, 574a and portion between tabs 574c) extending along the mount base (Simmons Fig. 13a shows this), and wherein a positioning tab (corresponding to the structure shown in Simmons 13a, 574c) extends from the base portion into a slot formed at the mount base (corresponding to the slots 572a shown in Simmons Fig. 13a)
Regarding claim 19: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 18 (as applied above), wherein the mount base forms a plurality of slots (Simmons 13d show a plurality of slots around the post, considered to be a circumferential arrangement) in circumferential arrangement around the post, and wherein the base portion of the mount wall extends radially from the sleeve to dispose the positioning tab at one of the plurality of slots (Simmons Fig. 13d shows the base portion of the mount wall, as applied in the rejection of claim 17, extending radially from the sleeve to dispose the positioning tab at one of the plurality of slots).
Regarding claim 20: Modified Simmons teachesThe fiber optic closure of claim 19 (as applied above), wherein selectively disposing the positioning tab at one of the plurality of slots disposes the mount wall at a corresponding angular position parallel, perpendicular, or oblique to a longitudinal axis or lateral axis (as the claim allows the angle to be parallel, perpendicular, or oblique to a longitudinal axis or a lateral axis, any angle meets the claim limitation and is therefore disclosed by Simmons).
Conclusion
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