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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 7/25/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brants et al. (US 20250060069 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Brants et al. (figures 18-25) disclose a mounting bracket (421) for use within a fiber optic access pedestal comprising: a top flange (480, figure 24) a bottom flange (480, figure 24); and a pair of slide flanges (449, 451) configured to retain a looped cable (coiled cables) within the pedestal with a bend radius that is not detrimental to cable performance ([0083]).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
10. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brants et al. (as cited above) in view of Fasnacht et al. (US 5535298-A).
With respect to claim 2, Brants et al. (figures 18-25) disclose the mounting bracket, further being configured to have an enclosure (420) mounted on the mounting bracket (421).
Brants et al. do not explicitly disclose a splice enclosure.
However, Fasnacht et al. (figures 2 and 4) teach an optical device having a splice enclosure (column 6, lines 54-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Brants et al. to include the splice enclosure (accordance with the teaching of Fasnacht) for the purpose of providing pedestals, enclosures and cabinets for fiber optic interconnection for splicing of optical fibers of cables such as where such cables are blown through routing tubes that have been routed through premises and their concluding end portions routed into interconnection cabinet (column 1, lines 6-11).
With respect to claim 3, Brants et al. (figures 18-25) disclose the mounting bracket further comprising a top flange cutout (486, figure 20) and a threaded nut on the bottom flange (480) for mounting the splice enclosure (420) (the mounting flanges 480 define mounting openings 486 that extend through the mounting flanges 480 in the front-to-rear orientation for receiving fasteners (e.g., screws, bolts, nails, etc.) for securing the mounting bracket 421 to a pole (e.g., see FIG. 26 where a telecommunications enclosure 491 is secured to the mounting plate portion 422 with bolts. The bolts can be secured in the mounting openings 486 with the assistance of nuts threaded on the bolts, [0079]).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holmberg et al. (US-11036018-B2) disclose an enclosure. Geens et al. (US-10261281-B2) disclose a telecommunications distribution. Hill et al. (US-2024/0345353 A1) disclose an optical fiber cassette.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights