CTNF 18/778,417 CTNF 80395 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding (US 6,504,989 B1) and Ray et al (US 9,207,422 B2) . Gooding teaches: 1. A method of assembling a wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) cassette (60, Figs. 4-9) for a fiber optic network (10/18, Figs. 1-2), the WDM cassette (60) having a cassette body (part of 60), the method comprising: attaching a first plurality of optical components (72) to a first cassette workpiece (above 104), each of the first plurality of the optical components (72) having a first end (left) from which an optical fiber (74) extends and a second end (right) from which one or more optical fibers (74) extend (Fig. 5); attaching a second plurality of optical components (72) to a second cassette workpiece (below 104), each of the second plurality optical components (72) having a first end (left) from which an optical fiber (fibers within 88, 90, etc.) extends and a second end (right) from which one or more optical fibers (fibers within 88, 90, etc.) extend (Fig. 5); organizing the optical fibers (74) extending from the second ends of the first plurality of optical components (72) (C4 L42 – C5 L9); organizing the optical fibers (fibers within 88, 90, etc.) extending from the second ends of the second plurality of optical components (72) (C4 L42 – C5 L9); adjusting a length of the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the first plurality of optical components (fibers are trimmed to precise lengths, C6 L30-55); adjusting a length of the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the second plurality of optical components (fibers are trimmed to precise lengths, C6 L30-55); and forming an optical connection between the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the first plurality of optical components and the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the second plurality of optical components (C4 L33-46), wherein the first cassette workpiece (above 104) and the second cassette workpiece (below 104) are separate from each other during at least one of the attaching, organizing, adjusting, and forming steps (these sections are always separate from each other, see Figs. 4-5). 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first cassette workpiece and the second cassette workpiece are separate from each other during each of the attaching, organizing, adjusting, and forming steps (these sections are always separate from each other, see Figs. 4-5). 3. The method of claim 1, wherein attaching the first plurality of optical components (72) to the first cassette workpiece (above 104) further comprises arranging the first plurality of optical components (72) side-by-side on the first cassette workpiece (above 104) with the respective first ends facing a first side of the first cassette workpiece (above 104) and the respective second ends facing a second side of the first cassette workpiece (above 104) (see Figs. 4-5, the channels are all side-by-side). 4. The method of claim 3, wherein attaching the second plurality of optical components (72) to the second cassette workpiece (below 104) further comprises arranging the second plurality of optical components (72) side-by-side on the second cassette workpiece (below 104) with the respective first ends facing a first side of the second cassette workpiece (below 104) and the respective second ends facing a second side of the second cassette workpiece (below 104) (see Figs. 4-5, the channels are all side-by-side). Gooding does not teach expressly the optical components being wavelength filters. Ray teaches a method of assembling a wavelength division multiplexing cassette for a fiber optic network wherein the optical components held in the cassette can be wavelength filters (C4 L4-21). Gooding and Ray are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fiber cassettes. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cassette of Gooding to use wavelength filters in the cassette of Gooding as taught by Ray. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the number of applications the cassette may be used in . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding and Ray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCloud et al (US 10,663,687 B1) . Gooding and Ray teach the method previously discussed. Gooding and Ray do not teach expressly ribbonizing the fibers as claimed. McCloud teaches: 5. The method of claim 1, wherein organizing optical fibers extending from second ends of the first plurality of optical components (RS) further comprises ribbonizing a portion of the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the first plurality of optical components, and wherein organizing the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the second plurality of optical components further comprises ribbonizing a portion of the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the second plurality of wavelength filters (C9 L57 – C10 L5). 6. The method of claim 5, wherein forming the optical connection between the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the first plurality optical components and the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the second plurality of optical components further comprises forming the optical connection using a mass fusion splice (C12 L38-45). Gooding, Ray and McCloud are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, methods of assembling fibers in a cassette. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibers of Gooding and Ray to ribbonize ends of the fibers for splicing as taught by McCloud. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of splice protectors needed by grouping fibers together in a ribbon first . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding and Ray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Classens et al (US 9,366,837 B2) . Gooding and Ray teach the method previously discussed. Gooding and Ray do not teach expressly forming twisted helical loops with the fiber as claimed. Classens teaches: 9. The method of claim 1, wherein optical fibers extending from second ends of a first plurality of optical components and the optical fibers extending from the second ends of the second plurality of optical components form a loop, and wherein the method further comprises: forming a helix configuration from the loop, wherein the helix configuration includes a plurality of cassette loops, wherein each of the plurality of cassette loops is configured to fit within the confines of the cassette body (C11 L45 – C12 L26). 10. The method of claim 9, wherein forming the helix configuration further comprises: twisting the loop one or more times to form the plurality of cassette loops and one or more intersecting points each between a respective pair of adjacent cassette loops; and folding the helix configuration about the one or more intersecting points to form a fiber stack including the plurality of cassette loops (which is description of a figure eight, which Classens teaches; C12 L3-15). Gooding, Ray and Classens are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, methods of assembling fibers in a cassette. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibers of Gooding and Ray to use known routing techniques such as helical and figure eight type routing in the cassette as taught by Classens. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce bend damage to fibers by using soft bending techniques such as helical and figure eight routing . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7 and 8 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: These claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a method of assembling a WDM cassette for a fiber optic network with the claimed first and second wavelength filters, first and second cassette workpieces and fibers routed between the filters wherein the first cassette workpiece defines a first cassette body portion and the second cassette workpiece defines a second cassette body portion, and wherein the method further comprises connecting the first cassette body portion and the second cassette body portion together to form the cassette body of the cassette, or wherein the first cassette workpiece defines a first mounting plate and the second cassette workpiece defines a second mounting plate, and wherein the method further comprises: attaching the first mounting plate to the cassette body of the cassette; and attaching the second mounting plate to the cassette body of the cassette, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach cassettes with channels for holding loops of fiber connected to various optical components: US 2005/0018948, US 7113686, US 10302886, US 11249269, US 11747579 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F. 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. /RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 6 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 7 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 8 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 9 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/778,417 Page 10 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights