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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02 September, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, the previously raised drawings objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 September, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants submit that an optical component insert is not a telecommunications module.
Examiner disagrees. The Simmons device is used for telecommunications (see background and paragraph 0030). A module is defined as one of a set of separate parts that, when combined, form a complete whole. The optical component insert is considered to fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of telecommunications module because it is one of a set of separate parts that, when combined, form a whole telecommunications device.
Applicant argues that the previous Office Action did not identify a first retainer wall extending from an upper surface of the platform base and defining at least a portion of a perimeter for that telecommunications module.
While the rejection has been updated in view of the amendments and to provide further clarity, the Simmons device has this claimed feature, which were described in the previously presented prior art rejections. See rejection below.
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 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, and 16 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), a module mounting location of the plurality of module mounting locations 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 and leg 184; 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 (bottom surface of heel 185a) configured substantially flush to the base wall upon insertion of the platform leg into a corresponding leg slot at the module mounting location (see paragraph 0050 and Fig. 4c; corresponding structures in Fig. 2; as applied to claim 4, the platform base is considered to comprise a wall substantially flush to the base wall, since it is close to contacting the base wall and lies parallel to it), the mount platform comprising a first retainer wall extending along from an upper surface of the platform base (Fig. 4c, interlocking features 183 forms a retainer wall, which is the wall extending upward from the leg and in contact with the leg of the second level mezzanine 180; corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, 6; alternatively, surface panel 182, is a retainer wall extending from an upper surface of the platform base, along with corresponding structures in Figs. 1, 2, 3a-b, and 6) and defining at least a portion of a perimeter for a telecommunications module mountable to the one or more organizer trays (as best shown in Fig. 2, the identified first retainer walls above form at least a portion of a perimeter for a telecommunications module mountable to the one or more organizer trays, the telecommunications module being the optical component inserts 175 and/or a second layer mezzanine 180 with an optical component insert 175 attached), wherein the first retainer wall extends along a first direction to form a first 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 one or more organizer trays 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 first 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 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 one or more organizer trays between the first side wall, the second side wall, the front wall, and the first retainer wall at the mount platform (see, e.g., Simmons Fig. 2, which shows the relative orientations of mezzanines 180 and the organizer tray, i.e. the first sidewall, the second sidewall, and the front wall; the mezzanines having the first retainer walls as part of the catches 183, as defined above, have these retainer walls at the four corners of the mezzanines; therefore, there is a first retainer wall in the embodiment having the catches 183, such that the telecommunications module 175 is mountable to one or more of the organizer trays between the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the front wall, and the first retainer wall).
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 a corresponding leg slot at the module mounting 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 through the one or more adapter openings (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) extending through the mount base, wherein extension of the slot corresponds to an orientation of the mount wall (they extend in the same plane and are therefore considered to have corresponding orientations, as shown in Fig. 4a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-11, 14-15, and 17-20 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:
Regarding claim 3: The closest found prior art, Simmons and Bryon, fail to teach or suggestThe fiber optic closure of claim 2, the one or more organizer trays comprising a retainer tab extending from the first sidewall, the second sidewall, or the front wall, the retainer tab forming a second detent that retains the telecommunications module. Therefore, claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6: The closest found prior art, Simmons and Bryon, fail to teach or suggestThe fiber optic closure of claim 1, wherein the first retainer wall extends along a perimeter of the platform base. Therefore, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 7-10: At least due to the allowable features of claim 6, claims 7-10 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11: The closest found prior art, Simmons and Bryon, fail to teach or suggestThe fiber optic closure of claim 1, wherein the mount platform comprises: a first mount platform comprising the first retainer wall extending along a perimeter of the platform base and configured as a first bound along the second direction; and a second mount platform comprising a second retainer wall extending along the perimeter of the platform base and configured as a second bound separated along the second direction from the first bound, wherein the first retainer wall and the second retainer wall define an interior therebetween configured to receive the telecommunications module. Therefore, claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14: The closest found prior art, Simmons and Bryon, fail to teach or suggestThe fiber optic closure of claim 12, the adapter mount comprising a post defining a channel for receiving a portion of the mount wall. Therefore, claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 15: At least due to the allowable features of claim 14, claim 15 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17: The closest found prior art, Simmons and Bryon, fail to teach or suggestThe fiber optic closure of claim 12, the adapter mount comprising a post extending from a substantially central position from the mount base, wherein the post comprises a latch configured to releasably couple to the mount wall, wherein the mount wall comprises a sleeve configured to couple around the post, the sleeve forming a channel through which the post extends. Therefore, claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 18-20: At least due to the allowable features of claim 17, claims 18-20 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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