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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of present application is broader in scope than claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,920.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closest prior art Pinn et al. (US 2011/0008996) teaches “A patch panel for a communications patching system includes a plurality of connector ports. Each connector port is configured to detect insertion and removal of a patch cord. A controller is electrically coupled to the connector ports and monitors patch cord interconnections. An electronic display is positioned adjacent the connector ports and displays port identification information and real-time patch cord connection information for each respective connector port. The displayed patch cord connection information is dynamically updated by the controller as a patch cord is inserted or removed from a respective connector port.” Additionally, Raza et al. (US 2018/0259722) teaches “A connectivity appliance that can interconnect, optical fiber communication paths of one fiber density to optical fiber communication paths of a different density, for either breakout or aggregation functionality is provided. The connectivity appliance that can interconnect high density connectors, e.g., multi-fiber connectors, to a plurality of low density connectors, e.g., single fiber optic connectors. The connectivity appliance can determine the presence of connectors inserted into the connectivity appliance adapters, determine the characteristics of the cables and connectors inserted into the connectivity appliance and/or in close proximity to the connectivity appliance. Each connector on the connectivity appliances can have one or more associated indicators, e.g., LEDs, on either the front panel or the rear panel that is in close proximity to the relevant adapter and that provides visual indications associated with the connectors.” However, the cited prior arts do not teach a system for providing port occupancy management as recited in the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/AN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686