DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on July 22, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 8, and 14 in independent form.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the EPO on August 3, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 23189512.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. See also the document filed in the US PTO record on January 3, 2025 noting the same.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on August 29, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (fourteen (14) pages) were received on July 22, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding these claims, the term “splice tray organiser” should be “splice tray organizer” for better reading at the U.S. PTO. Claim 1 and 13 have a single instance of “organiser”, while the other noted claims have been 2x and 7x instances of “organiser” within those claims. While the Examiner notes that Applicant is their own lexicographer, the term “organiser” in the Title should be reviewed and consider for re-drafting to “organizer.” Further regarding independent method claim 14, in line 19, the phrase “when it is determined that a splice tray of the first type is to be installed”, should be replaced with “when it is determined that a splice tray of the second type is to be installed.” The “first type” was already claimed prior in claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 4 (with further dependent claim 5), 9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 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 these dependent claims (3, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 17), the term “optionally” implies that such feature may (or may not) be required in the claim. Accordingly, the claim scope is unclear (vague and indefinite) as the metes-and-bounds are not directly known in these claims. Applicant is advised to replace the “optionally” term with another feature that positively recites the features as desired. Claim 5 is also rejected as being dependent from claim 4. For these reasons, claims 3-5, 9, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected as being vague and indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12 is rejected as lacking proper antecedent basis under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Regarding claim 12, the term “one or more mounts” lacks proper antecedent basis as such term is already found in claim 8. Therefore, this is either a new term, or the term should read “the one or more mounts” to refer to claim 8. Also regarding claim 12, the term “second side” in claim 8 refers to the “splice tray adapter”, and not the “splice tray” itself. Therefore, the term “second side” in relation to a “splice tray” lacks proper antecedent basis and is rejected as being vague / indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Claessens et al. US 2021/0132316 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 11,592,637 B2).
Claessens et al. US 2021/0132316 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3; paragraphs [0031] – [0039]; Claims) a splice tray adapter (Figs. 1-7; 12 / 100 / 200; paras [0032] – [0033], [0036]) for holding splice trays within a splice tray organizer (housing feature of 10; para [0031] – [0032]), the splice tray adapter comprising a first side and a second side (different sides shown in Figs. 5-6 – left and right of central feature at 12); wherein the first side (as in Figs. 1-2) comprises one or more mounts of a first type for mounting one or more splice trays of a first type (first “type” at side of 14, para [0033]); and wherein the second side (as in Figs. 3-4) comprises one or more mounts of a second type for mounting one or more splice trays of a second type (second “type” at side of 24, para [0037]), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 8, Claessens US ’316 teaches a system comprising: a splice tray adapter for holding splice trays within a splice tray organizer, the splice tray adapter comprising a first side and a second side; wherein the first side comprises one or more mounts of a first type for mounting one or more splice trays of a first type; and wherein the second side comprises one or more mounts of a second type for mounting one or more splice trays of a second type; and a splice tray organizer for receiving a splice tray adapter for holding splice trays, the splice tray organizer configured to receive the splice tray adapter in either a first position or a second position (“facing up” in Figs. 1, 2, 5; “facing down” in Figs. 3, 4, 6), which meets all claimed structure (same reference numbers, Figs., paragraphs as claim 1 above).
Regarding method independent claim 14, the method of installing steps are inherent from the structural configurations outlined above by device claims 1 and 8. For example, Claessens US ‘316 teaches: a method of installing a splice tray in a splice tray organizer (Figs. 1-7, notably Figs. 5-6), the method comprising: providing a splice tray adapter; wherein the splice tray adapter comprising a first side and a second side; wherein the first side comprises one or more mounts of a first type for mounting one or more splice trays of a first type; and wherein the second side comprises one or more mounts of a second type for mounting one or more splice trays of a second type; providing a splice tray organizer for receiving a splice tray adapter for holding splice trays, the splice tray organizer configured to receive the splice tray adapter in either a first position or a second position; and determining that a splice tray of a first type is to be installed in the splice tray organizer or determining that a splice tray of a second type is to be installed in the splice tray organizer; wherein when it is determined that a splice tray of the first type is to be installed, the method further comprises: providing a splice tray of the first type; inserting the splice tray adapter in the splice tray organizer in the first position; and mounting the splice tray of the first type on the splice tray adapter; and when it is determined that a splice tray of the second (not “first”) type is to be installed, the method further comprises: providing a splice tray of the second type; inserting the splice tray adapter in the splice tray organizer in the second position; and mounting the splice tray of the second type on the splice tray adapter (see Figs. 1-7; paras [0031] – [0039]). All such method steps of installation the splice tray are implied in Claessens.
Regarding further dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, the prior art of Claessens teaches all such structure and/or the inherent method steps of installing same, with element 12 having substantially planar body (Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6; claims 2 and 15); reversibility (claims 3 and 16; noting features of “facing up” and “facing down” being reversed); mounts being visible (claims 6 and 19); the same positions being visible (as in Figs. 5-6; claims 7 and 20); the implicit features of the housing comprising 1st and 2nd structural “interfaces” for retention (claim 9); and the features of Fig. 2 and 4 curving pathways 16 / 18 and 26 / 28. Therefore, Claessens clearly and fully anticipates all structural features, and inherent methods, of those dependent claims.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 10-12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claessens et al. US 2021/0132316 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 11,592,637 B2), based on independent claims 1, 8, or 14, standing alone.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14, Claessens et al. US 2021/0132316 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3; paragraphs [0031] – [0039]; Claims) a splice tray adapter (Figs. 1-7; 12 / 100 / 200; paras [0032] – [0033], [0036]) for holding splice trays within a splice tray organizer, and all such structure / methods of installing same. See the full anticipation rejection above in Section (12), in 35 U.S.C. 102.
Regarding further dependent claims 4, 5, 10-12, 17, and 18, Claessens US ‘316 does not expressly and exactly teach all such added dependencies to include: the latching / ribs componentry for engagement of the corresponding slots for the splice tray (claims 4, 5, 17, 18); the features ridges for engagement (claim 10); or the optionality of the accessibility or the reversable connection (claims 11-12). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as those added engagement structural connections (latches / ribs / ridges ; and reversible optionality of connection), because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Claessens to perform equally well with such features as the structural mechanical dependencies because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve durability and to maintain the proper positions of the splice trays in the organizer / holder. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a system / adapter as in Claessens. Further, the base structure of the independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are clearly anticipated over Claessens as discussed prior to this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Claessens to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4, 5, 10-12, and 17-18. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form reference A, which is the allowed parent patent of Classens et al. US ‘316 (patent ‘637). Also see PTO-892 form references B-C (Bran de Leon US ‘693 and Castonguay US ‘844), which pertain to the state of the art of adapters / organizers that hold fiber splice trays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights