Non-Final Rejection
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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 13, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 20, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: the claim requires the first and second mandrels to be equidistant from the first and second laterally extending walls. This does not appear to be shown in the drawings or discussed in the specification. Instead, as seen in figure 4 and discussed in the specification (see paragraph 0052, L1 and L3 are equal in some embodiments) the first and second mandrels are disposed equidistant (at least in some embodiments, as noted in the specification) from the first and second laterally extending walls, respectively. Based on all the context the examiner could find, this appears to be what was intended by applicant and is how the examiner is interpreting claim 5 for purposes of this office action
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldassano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0051341, hereinafter referred to as “BALDASSANO”). BALDASSANO anticipates claims:
Claims 1, 14, and 18:
A fiber optic assembly (see figures 1-7D) comprising:
a housing base (cabinet 10 is interpreted as the housing base);
an opto-electronic device (the servers 18 or other active network equipment, see paragraph 0031, are interpreted as the opto-electronic device) supported by the housing base;
one or more fiber optic adapters (the patch panel 60 and/or the switch 70 are interpreted as the one or more fiber optic adapters) supported by the housing base (see figures 7B and 7C);
at least one optical fiber (patch cords 36 are interpreted as the at least one optical fiber) optically connecting the one or more fiber optic adapters to the opto-electronic device (see figures 1-7); and
at least one fiber optic cable accumulator (the patch cord cassettes 30 are interpreted as the accumulator) supported by the housing base (see figures 2, 3, 4 and 7), the at least one fiber optic cable accumulator configured to route at least a portion of the at least one optical fiber from the one or more fiber optic adapters to the opto-electronic device (see figures 1-7), the at least one fiber optic cable accumulator comprising:
a base (base panel 41 is interpreted as the base);
a perimeter wall (front 33, rear 35, top 37 and bottom 39 panels are interpreted as forming the perimeter wall) extending from the base and defining:
a cavity (see figure 4A, the cavity is the empty space of the interior of the cassette 30); and
a plurality of openings providing ingress (the entry aperture 35a is interpreted as the ingress) and egress (the exit aperture 33a is interpreted as the egress) pathways into the cavity; and
at least one mandrel (see figures 4A-4C, the rear spool 34 is interpreted as the at least one mandrel) extending from the base within the cavity and disposed equidistant from at least two opposite portions of the perimeter wall (see figure 4B, the opposite “portions” can be interpreted as portions of the panels 37 and 39 that are equidistant from the rear spool 34 meeting the limitations of the claims);
and at least one optical fiber (of the patch cords 36; see paragraph 0034) at least partially stored within the cavity, the at least one optical fiber configured to optically connect one or more fiber optic adapters to an opto-electronic device (see figures 1-7).
2. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 1, wherein the perimeter wall is comprised of a first laterally extending wall (33) disposed at one end of the base and a second laterally extending wall (35) disposed at an opposite end of the base.
3. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 2, wherein the at least one mandrel comprises a single mandrel (34) disposed a first distance away from the first laterally extending wall and a second distance away from the second laterally extending wall, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (see figure 4B).
8. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 1, wherein an external fillet is defined on each side of the plurality of openings (see figures 3-4, the shape of the sides of the openings are each interpreted as external fillets).
16. The fiber optic assembly of claim 14, wherein the plurality of openings of the at least one fiber optic cable accumulator are configured to limit bending of the at least one optical fiber (see figure 4A; the fibers can be routed through and not bent, so they’re interpreted as being configured to limit bending of the at least one optical fiber).
17. The fiber optic assembly of claim 14, wherein the at least one fiber optic cable accumulator comprises a plurality of fiber optic accumulators disposed in one or more vertical stacks (see figure 3).
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.
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(s) 4-7, 9-13, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALDASSANO. The claims are rejected out of order for simplicity and brevity, but the examiner believes the rejection to be clear when read in the order presented below.
With respect to claim 10, BALDASSANO discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated. BALDASSANO is silent to wherein the at least one mandrel comprises a cylindrical body with an upper portion defined by a lip that overhangs the cylindrical body. The examiner takes official notice that mandrels that include cylindrical bodies having upper portions defined by a lip that overhangs the body are well-known in the optical communications arts for their use in cabinets, racks, cassettes and other optical fiber routing structures, and are beneficially utilized to help keep wound optical fibers contained around the mandrels, to help prevent the fibers from slipping or popping off the mandrels, during their normal use. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize these types of well-known fiber routing mandrels in the device of BALDASSANO because they can help contain the optical fibers and prevent unwanted unwinding of the optical fibers inside the cassettes.
With respect to claims 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19 and 20, BALDASSANO discloses the limitations of claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 14 and 18 as previously stated.
BALDASSANO is silent to the structure formed such that:
4. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 3, wherein the second distance is about 80 mm.
5. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 2, wherein the at least one mandrel comprises a first mandrel and a second mandrel, wherein the first mandrel and the second mandrel are disposed equidistant from the first laterally extending wall and the second laterally extending wall.
6. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 5, wherein the first mandrel is disposed about 50 mm from the first laterally extending wall and the second mandrel is disposed about 50 mm from the second laterally extending wall.
7. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 5, wherein the first mandrel is spaced at a distance of about 10 mm from the second mandrel.
9. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 8, wherein the external fillet has a radius of at least about 10 mm.
11. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 10, wherein the cylindrical body of the at least one mandrel has a radius of at least about 10 mm.
13. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 1, wherein the cavity has a width of at least about 25 mm.
15. The fiber optic assembly of claim 14, wherein the at least one mandrel of the at least one fiber optic cable accumulator is configured to limit bending of the at least one optical fiber to a predetermined bend radius of at least about 10 mm.
19. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 18, wherein a failure probability due to bend stress in the at least one optical fiber is below 1.5x10-4.
20. The fiber optic cable accumulator of claim 18, wherein a failure probability due to bend stress in the at least one optical fiber is below 5x10-5.
The examiner notes that these limitations, these differences, are not additional structures missing from BALDASSANO, but rather define the previously claimed structures with respect to their size, their size/distance with respect to other components, and their performance defined by these sizes and layouts. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the structures of BALDASSANO such that each of these limitations are met, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 12, BALDASSANO discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated. BALDASSANO is silent to that limitation wherein the fiber optic cable accumulator is formed from a static dissipative material having a surface resistance of between about 1x105 ohms/square and 1x1012 ohms/square. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BALDASSANO to meet this limitations since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M BEDTELYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1290. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
/John Bedtelyon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights