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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 9 and 14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious bearing tabs stamped out of a side wall, a clamping surface, unlocking element, or sliding blocks, as claimed. The closest relevant prior art of record, Cooke et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2010/0322581 A1), fails to teach or suggest such features.
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, 7, 10 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooke et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2010/0322581 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘581 teaches a rail arrangement for receiving multiple carrier units for fibre-optic components, in particular for patch panels, comprising: a first mounting rail (58 in left 12) and a separate second mounting rail (58 in right 12, par.0051, fig. 7),wherein the mounting rails are spaced apart from one another and each extend integrallv over multiple discrete height levels (fig. 8), in order to receive the carrier units (20) between them so as to be distributed among the height levels (fig. 7, 8), wherein each of the mounting rails has at least one primary linear guide means (68) at each of the height levels, in order to guide the respective carrier unit parallel to a longitudinal axis of the mounting rails (fig. 7); and wherein each of the mounting rails has, at at least one of the height levels, multiple separate bearing surfaces (74) for the primary linear guide means and/or for the respective carrier unit, said bearing surfaces being spaced apart from one another along the longitudinal axis of the mounting rails (fig. 8); and wherein one, multiple or all the bearing surfaces are formed on respective bearing tabs (72).
In Re claim 2, ’581 teaches less than 1-U as claimed (fig 1 has a the levels within 1 - U). Furthermore, the term preferably is speculative and thus not a positive recitation.
In Re claim 3, ‘581 teaches wherein the bearing tabs each extend in the direction of the opposite mounting rail and partially along the longitudinal axis (L) of the mounting rails (they are 3D so width and length extends as claimed).
In Re claim 6, ‘581 teaches wherein at least the bearing tabs of in each case two directly adjacent height levels of the same mounting rail are arranged spaced apart from one another along the longitudinal axis (L) of the mounting rail (a front upper 72 and lower rear 72, fig. 8).
In Re claim 7, ‘581 teaches wherein the at least one primary linear guide means is in the form of a component which is separate from the respective mounting rail, and is
fastened, preferably is fastened so as to be detachable without being destroyed, to the respective mounting rail (1, 2), for example by way of a latching connection or a screw connection (fig. 8).
In Re claim 10, ‘581 teaches wherein the mounting rails each have means for increasing the mechanical rigidity, in particular one or more folded-over edges, struts and/or material reinforcements formed along the longitudinal axis (L) of the mounting rail (any of a 72 or 74 or 86).
In Re claim 11, ‘581 teaches wherein the first mounting rail and the second mounting rail have the same structural design, but are formed and arranged-symmetrically with respect to one another.
In Re claim 12, ‘581 teaches wherein each of the mounting rails has at least one fastening point (66, par. 0052) for fastening to a distribution frame, preferably in each case at least two fastening points which are spaced apart from one another and are arranged at different height levels (fig. 8).
In Re claim 13, ‘581 teaches a carrier arrangement (10 or 260), having multiple carrier units, in particular patch panels (par. 0037, 0043, 0066); and a rail arrangement for the carrier units (par. 0043) according Claim 1, wherein the carrier units are received between the two mounting rails so as to be distributed among the different height levels (fig. 1).
In Re claim 15, ‘581 teaches a fibre-optic distribution system comprising:
a distribution frame (14); and at least one carrier arrangement according to Claim 13 which is
fastened in the distribution frame (figs. 1 and 25).
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooke et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2010/0322581 A1).
In Re claim 5, ‘581 teaches the arrangement of claim 3 but is silent to wherein an extent of one, multiple or all the bearing tabs in the direction of the respectively opposite mounting rail is greater than a distance (d) between the discrete height level.
However, it is well known in the art to create a large support area (bearing tab) for a tray so as to ensure adequate support thus a more robust arrangement.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tabs to be dimensioned as claimed so as to allow for adequate support thus a more robust arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights