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 with respect to claim(s) 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on how any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pages 4 – 5 of the REMARKS, “O'Shaughnessy and Zhang do not teach a or suggest a fiber trough system. O'Shaughnessy is directed to an aircraft raceway liner, not a fiber trough system or a pathway isolation fitting included in a fiber trough system.”. The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant states in Applicant’s Specification at [0002], “More particularly, this disclosure relates to fittings used with troughs and the routing of signal carrying fibers (e.g., optical fibers) and wires (e.g., copper wires) in different regions of the trough defined by the fittings.”. Applicant further states in [0017] “In some examples, the fitting can be sized such that it does not contact the bottom surface of the trough to which it is mounted, thereby enabling optical cables to pass between the bottom surface of the trough and the fitting, while still extending sufficiently deep into the trough to accommodate a desired number of bulk cables”. At [0021], Applicant also states “According to still further aspects of the present disclosure, a system comprises: a first plurality of cables; a second plurality of cables; a fiber trough having a first bottom cable support surface and first and second opposite sidewalls extending from opposite ends of the first bottom cable support surface, the first and second sidewalls and first bottom cable support surface defining a first channel; and a pathway isolation fitting mounted to one of the first and second sidewalls and partially positioned in the first channel, the pathway isolation fitting including a second bottom cable support surface and third and fourth opposite sidewalls extending from the second bottom cable support surface, the third and fourth sidewalls and the second bottom cable support surface defining a second channel, the second channel being within the first channel, wherein the first plurality of optical cables are routed through the first channel and are supported by the first bottom cable support surface; and wherein the second plurality of optical cables are routed through the second channel and are supported by the second bottom cable support surface.”.
O’Shaughnessy (US 2020/0006927 A1) states at [0053], “The primary channel or raceway can also be made from a dielectric or insulating material, for example when the cables carried are optical so that protection from electrical hazards is less important”. O’Shaughnessy also states at [0068], “For example, although described in the context of electrical cables, the invention may be applied to any type of cable, including optical, which will still benefit from the increased segregation for ease of installation and maintenance.”. As seen by Applicant’s Specification, optical cables are nominally the same as optical fibers or optical fiber cables. As O’Shaughnessy discloses a trough for optical cables, O’Shaughnessy thus teaches a fiber trough and fiber routing system.
Applicant argues on pages 4 – 5 of the REMARKS, “Zhang is directed to a beam clamp/strut attachment arrangement, not a fiber trough system or a pathway isolation fitting included in a fiber trough system. The cited Zhang disclosure concerns slots in a beam clamp body for receiving a U-bolt, and slots used to position beam-clamp hardware relative to a strut and beam. Thus, Zhang supplies, at most, a fastener-positioning feature from a beam clamp environment. It does not teach or suggest modifying an aircraft raceway liner (of O' Shaughnessy) so that it becomes part of a fiber trough system including a pathway isolation fitting as recited in claim 1. The other art of record does not cure at least these deficiencies of O' Shaughnessy and Zhang.”. The Office respectfully disagrees.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Zhang teaches of slots in order to receive a fastener, allow quick positioning of a fastener and allow easy positioning of a fastener (Zhang, Column 2, line 60-Column 3, line 20). Applicant states in Applicant’s Specification at [0058] “The projecting wall 218 defines a pair of notches 220 that are positioned to be in communication with the T-shaped recess 74 of a trough 42 (FIG. 3). Thus, for example, a pair of T-shaped engaging elements 86 of a pair of fastener assemblies 82 (FIG. 14) can be passed through the notches 220 and into the T-shaped recess 74 (FIG. 4) in the manner described above to couple the fitting 200 to the trough 42 (FIG. 3).”. Similar to the Applicant, Zhang is using the notches to allow for a fastener to be received into the plurality of recesses.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaughnessy (US 2020/0006927 A1) in view of Zhang (US 10,100,861 B2).
Regarding Claim 29, O’Shaughnessy (US 2020/0006927 A1) discloses a fiber ([0053,0068] “optical”) routing system (Fig 1-4), comprising: a fiber trough system including a pathway isolation fitting (4,20; structure shown can perform this function), the pathway isolation fitting including: a bottom cable support surface (lower floor surface of 20 as seen in Fig 1-4); a first sidewall (wall of 4 on the left side of 6 in Fig 1B) extending from the bottom cable support surface; a second sidewall (wall of 4 between 6 and 8 in Fig 1B) opposite (with respect to 6) the first sidewall and extending from the bottom cable support surface, the first sidewall, the second sidewall and the bottom cable support surface defining a channel (6); a flange (14) extending from a top of the first sidewall; and a projecting wall (16) extending from the flange (14).
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the projecting wall defining a plurality of notches.
Zhang (US 10,100,861 B2) teaches of a fitting (Fig 1-10) comprising a projecting wall (16) defining a plurality of notches (40,42).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Shaughnessy, wherein the projecting wall defining a plurality of notches as taught by Zhang, in order to receive a fastener, allow quick positioning of a fastener and allow easy positioning of a fastener (Zhang, Column 2, line 60-Column 3, line 20).
Claim 1 states in the preamble of the claim, “fiber routing system”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of for a fiber routing system.
Regarding Claim 36, ’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy further teaches the fiber ([0053,0068]) routing system (Fig 1-4) of claim 29, wherein the second sidewall (wall of 4 between 6 and 8 in Fig 1B) and the bottom cable support surface are perpendicular (see Fig 1-4) to each other.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Note that the Applicant has not provided any criticality for this claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 32 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaughnessy (US 2020/0006927 A1) in view of Zhang (US 10,100,861 B2) as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Gutt (US 2022/0384968 A1) and Adams (US 7,207,088 B2).
Regarding Claim 32, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, wherein the flange and the first sidewall form an oblique angle.
Gutt (US 2022/0384968 A1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 1-3) wherein a flange (11) and a first sidewall (10) form an oblique angle (see Fig 3; note that there is angle on the left side of 10 with respect to 11 which is oblique and acute, and an angle on the right side of 10ith respect to 11 which is oblique and obtuse; note that a datum of reference is not established in the claim language).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang, wherein the flange and the first sidewall form an oblique angle with motivation from Adams (US 7,207,088 B2), in order to increase a holding power and prevent lifting (Adams, Column 3, line 50-Column 4, line 36).
Regarding Claim 33, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang, Gutt and Adams teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Gutt further teaches the system (Fig 1-3) of claim 32, wherein the oblique angle is an acute angle (see Fig 3; note that there is angle on the left side of 10 with respect to 11 which is oblique and acute; note that a datum of reference is not established in the claim language).
Claim(s) 34 – 35 and 37 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaughnessy (US 2020/0006927 A1) in view of Zhang (US 10,100,861 B2) as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Lough (US 7,188,977 B1).
Regarding Claim 34, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, wherein the first sidewall and the bottom cable support surface form an oblique angle.
Lough (US 7,188,977 B1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 1-2), wherein a first sidewall (20) and a bottom cable support surface (40) form an oblique angle (see Fig 2 showing an acute oblique angle between 40 and upper portion of 20 and showing an obtuse oblique angle between 40 and a lower end of 20; Column 2, lines 60-67; note that no datum of reference was established to define this claimed angle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang, wherein the first sidewall and the bottom cable support surface form an oblique angle in order to retain a cable (Lough, Column 3, lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 35, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang and Lough teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Lough further teaches the fiber routing system (Fig 1-2) of claim 34, wherein the oblique angle is an obtuse angle (see Fig 2 showing an obtuse oblique angle between 40 and a lower end of 20; Column 2, lines 60-67; note that no datum of reference was established to define this claimed angle).
Regarding Claim 37, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, wherein the second sidewall and the bottom cable support surface form an oblique angle.
Lough (US 7,188,977 B1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 1-2), wherein a second sidewall (42) and a bottom cable support surface (40) form an oblique angle (see Fig 2 showing an acute oblique angle between 40 and upper portion of 20 and showing an obtuse oblique angle between 40 and a lower end of 20; Column 2, lines 60-67; note that no datum of reference was established to define this claimed angle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang, wherein the second sidewall and the bottom cable support surface form an oblique angle in order to retain a cable (Lough, Column 3, lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 38, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang and Lough teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Lough further teaches the fiber routing system (Fig 1-2) of claim 37, wherein the oblique angle is an acute angle (see Fig 2).
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Note that the Applicant has not provided any criticality for this claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 49 – 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaughnessy (US 2020/0006927 A1) in view of Zhang (US 10,100,861 B2) as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Caveney (US 2007/0290100 A1).
Regarding Claim 49, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, wherein the fiber trough system further comprises a strap retainer.
Caveney (US 2007/0290100 A1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 6), comprising a strap retainer (10,36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang wherein the fiber trough system further comprises a strap retainer as taught by Caveney, in order to secure a cable and a cable mount, prevent rotation, allow removal or release of cables, and prevent slippage (Caveney, [0019-0022]).
Regarding Claim 50, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, further comprising a plurality of strap retainers.
Caveney (US 2007/0290100 A1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 6), comprising a plurality of strap retainers (10,36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang further comprising a plurality of strap retainers as taught by Caveney, in order to secure a cable and a cable mount, prevent rotation, allow removal or release of cables, and prevent slippage (Caveney, [0019-0022]).
Regarding Claim 51, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, further comprising a strap retainer projecting from the bottom cable support surface.
Caveney (US 2007/0290100 A1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 6), comprising a plurality of strap retainers (10,36) projecting from a bottom cable support surface (bottom surface of 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang further comprising a strap retainer projecting from the bottom cable support surface as taught by Caveney, in order to secure a cable and a cable mount, prevent rotation, allow removal or release of cables, and prevent slippage (Caveney, [0019-0022]).
Regarding Claim 52, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, further comprising a plurality of strap retainers projecting from the bottom cable support surface.
Caveney (US 2007/0290100 A1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 6), comprising a plurality of strap retainers (10,36) projecting from a bottom cable support surface (bottom surface of 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang further comprising a plurality of strap retainers projecting from the bottom cable support surface as taught by Caveney, in order to secure a cable and a cable mount, prevent rotation, allow removal or release of cables, and prevent slippage (Caveney, [0019-0022]).
Regarding Claim 53, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, further comprising a strap retainer projecting from the bottom cable support surface into the channel.
Caveney (US 2007/0290100 A1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 6), comprising a plurality of strap retainers (10,36) projecting from a bottom cable support surface (bottom surface of 30) into a channel (space within 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang further comprising a strap retainer projecting from the bottom cable support surface into the channel as taught by Caveney, in order to secure a cable and a cable mount, prevent rotation, allow removal or release of cables, and prevent slippage (Caveney, [0019-0022]).
Regarding Claim 54, O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
O’Shaughnessy does not disclose the fiber routing system of claim 29, further comprising a plurality of strap retainers projecting from the bottom cable support surface into the channel.
Caveney (US 2007/0290100 A1) teaches of a fitting (Fig 6), comprising a plurality of strap retainers (10,36) projecting from a bottom cable support surface (bottom surface of 30) into a channel (space within 30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by O’Shaughnessy in view of Zhang further comprising a plurality of strap retainers projecting from the bottom cable support surface into the channel as taught by Caveney, in order to secure a cable and a cable mount, prevent rotation, allow removal or release of cables, and prevent slippage (Caveney, [0019-0022]).
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 ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights