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
Information disclosure statements filed 8/29/2024 and 1/29/2026 have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0322581 A1 to Cooke et al. (hereinafter “Cooke”).
Regarding claim 1, Cooke discloses a fiber management system comprising: a tray (e.g. 20 in Fig. 3) comprising: a first rail (56 in Fig. 6) positioned at a first side end of the tray; a second rail (i.e. the other 56 in Fig. 1) positioned at a second side end of the tray; a tray body (i.e. not explicitly labeled but clearly shown in Fig. 6; see also paragraph [0047]) surface that extends from the first side end to the second side end, the tray body including a middle portion between the first rail and the second rail (Fig. 6); and at least one latch rail (32 in Fig. 6) positioned on the middle portion, the at least one latch rail including a front stop latch (38, 40 in Fig. 4) at a front end of the latch rail; and a fiber module (22 in Fig. 3) comprising: a first side wall (102A in Fig. 10A) including a front post (28A in Fig. 13) positioned near a front end of the fiber module, the front post configured to engage the front stop latch (better shown in Fig. 5); a second side wall (102B in Fig. 10A); a front mounting face (96 in Fig. 10A), the front mounting face including a front opening (23 in Fig. 10A) configured to receive a front-side fiber component (i.e. fiber optic connectors; see paragraph [0045]); and a rear wall (98 in Fig. 10A) including a rear opening (i.e. the rear opening occupied by element 100 as shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Cooke discloses wherein the front stop latch is configured to flex in a direction that is perpendicular to an installation direction of the fiber module when the front post engages the front stop latch (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Cooke discloses wherein the rear wall further comprises a rear handle (48 in Fig. 11) that protrudes out from the rear wall.
Regarding claim 4, Cooke discloses wherein the rear handle is positioned between the rear opening and an outer edge of the rear wall (i.e. Fig. 11 clearly shows element 48 being positioned between the opening and the right side edge of the rear wall).
Regarding claim 6, Cooke discloses wherein the at least one latch rails includes at least three latch rails (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Cooke discloses wherein the at least one latch rails includes a single latch rail (Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 8, Cooke discloses wherein the fiber module is configured for both front side and rear side installation on the tray (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Cooke discloses wherein the rear opening is configured to receive a rear side fiber component (100 in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Cooke discloses wherein the rear side fiber component is a multi fiber component (100 in Fig. 11; paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 11, Cooke discloses wherein the front side fiber component (23 in Fig. 3) is a multi fiber component (i.e. duplex fiber optic component- paragraph [0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooke.
Cooke discloses a fiber management system according to claim 1 as already discussed above. Although it discloses the use of a first rear handle and a second rear handle (46 and 48 in Fig. 11) it does not explicitly disclose that they are positioned on a first side of the rear opening and a second side of a rear opening as claimed on the present application.
On the other hand, the relative positions of the handles with respect to the rear opening of the module would have been a mere design choice well known in the art, not affecting the critical inventive concept of the optical fiber module device of Cooke. The handle position and the rear opening are well known in the art to be positioned depending on the space requirements of the internal components and the manufacturing and assembly convenience of the producers of the fiber optic module devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Cooke to have the first and second rear handles to be positioned on the firs and second sides of the rear opening in the manner claimed in the present application.
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. 12,105,338 B2 (hereinafter “the ‘338 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the present application are obvious variations of the claim limitations of the patented claims of the ‘338 patent.
Specifically, claim 1 of the ‘338 patent recites a fiber management system (col. 11, ll. 54) comprising: a tray (col. 11, ll. 55) comprising: a first rail positioned at a first side end of the tray (col. 1, ll. 57); a second rail positioned at a second side end of the tray (col. 1, ll. 59); a tray body (col. 11, ll. 55) surface that extends from the first side end to the second side end (inherent property of a tray body, since if the surface doesn’t extend from one side to another, it will not be a “tray”), the tray body including a middle portion between the first rail and the second rail (also an inherent property of any tray); and a fiber module (col. 11, ll. 61) comprising: a first side wall including a front post positioned near a front end of the fiber module (col. 11, ll. 62-64); a second side wall (col. 11, ll. 65); a front mounting face (col. 12, ll. 1), the front mounting face including a front opening configured to receive a front-side fiber component (col. 12, ll. 1-3).
However, the’338 patent does not explicitly recite the use of at least one latch rail comprising a front stop latch, in the manner claimed in the present application. In addition, the ’338 patent does not explicitly claim that the fiber module has a rear wall including a rear opening as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, these features are well known features in the art, and they do not make the claimed limitations of the present application patentable over the patented claims of the ‘338 patent. The use of a latch rail comprising a latch stop is well known and common in the art. Such latch rails are widely and advantageously used in the art in order to securely and repeatably position fiber optic modules within a fiber optic cabinet tray. In addition, the use of a rear wall and a rear opening in a fiber optic module is also well known and common in the art. such rear openings allow for convenient and more flexible positional access to the internal optical fiber components of the fiber optic module. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing of the present application, to modify the claims of the ‘338 patent to claim at least one latch rail comprising a front stop latch, and the fiber module having a rear wall including a rear opening as claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 5PM.
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.
/SUNG H PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights