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 .
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, 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 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.
In claim 3, the term “limit mechanism” is indefinite because it is a generic placeholder term that does not, by itself, reasonably apprise the public of the scope of the claimed structure. The claim does not recite the nature of the mechanism, its structural characteristics, or how the mechanism limits movement. As written, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as reciting some structural feature of the terminal housing that limits the extent of movement of the cover portion when the cover portion is opened. The term “limit mechanism” is read broadly to encompass any unspecified stop, latch, hinge restraint, detent, or other movement-limiting structure.
In claim 5, the phrase “substantially contained” is indefinite because it does not clearly define the degree or extent of containment required. The scope of the claim is uncertain because it is unclear what constitutes sufficient containment to fall within or outside the claim.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring that the adapter housing be located mostly within the base portion, and that the splitter housing be located mostly within the cover portion, with some portion of each housing possibly extending outside those respective portions.
In claim 7, the phrase “generally overlies” is indefinite because it does not establish a clear boundary for the required positional relationship. In addition, the term “shield” is a functional and relative term that does not clearly define the extent of protection required. The phrase “other fiber optic components” is also broad and does not clearly identify the components from which the front ports must be shielded.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring the front panel, when closed, to cover or at least partially overlap the front ports so as to protect them from being contacted by other components inside the terminal.
In claim 12, the phrase “generally overlies” is indefinite because it fails to clearly set forth the required spatial relationship between the rear panel and the rear ports. The term “shield” is also indefinite because it does not objectively define the required extent of coverage or protection. Further, “other fiber optic components” is overly broad and does not clearly delineate the components contemplated by the claim.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring the rear panel, when closed, to cover or overlap the rear ports to protect them from contact by components within the terminal.
In claims 15 and 16, the terms “feeder field” and “distribution field” are indefinite because they are not standard structural terms and do not, on their face, clearly convey the boundaries of the claimed subject matter. The claims do not explain whether these “fields” refer to physical areas, functional groupings, or another defined arrangement. As written, the scope of the claimed adapter groupings is uncertain.
For examination purposes, claim 15 is interpreted as meaning that a first subset of adapters is arranged in some portion of the adapter housing that the applicant refers to as a “feeder field,” presumably corresponding to adapters associated with feeder-side connections.
For examination purposes, claim 16 is interpreted as meaning that a second subset of adapters is arranged in some portion of the adapter housing that the applicant refers to as a “distribution field,” presumably corresponding to distribution-side connections.
In claim 18, the term “feeder field” is indefinite for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 15. In addition, the phrase “configured to be operatively connected” is functional and does not clearly define the structural relationship of the claimed adapters to the incoming fiber optic cable.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring a first set of adapters in the adapter housing that is associated with the incoming fiber optic cable and located in a region called a feeder field.
In claim 19, the term “distribution field” is indefinite because it does not clearly define the claimed subject matter or its boundaries. The phrase does not specify whether the term refers to a physical region, a logical grouping, or some other arrangement, rendering the scope of the claim uncertain.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring a second group of adapters associated with outgoing fiber connections and located in a region called a distribution field.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of the action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or discussed by the examiner.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CONNER et al., WO 2010/062626 hereinafter ‘626 in view of Thiago Deconto Vleira, US 2022/0390675 a1 (cited in the IDS), hereinafter ‘675.
As to claim 1, ’626 discloses a strand mounted terminal for a fiber optic network (’626 discloses a fiber optic terminal 10 suspended from a strand 16 using hanger bracket assemblies 18. ¶¶ [0050], [0090]-[0091]; FIG. 1) that includes an incoming fiber optic cable carrying incoming optical fibers ( ’626 discloses feeder cable 12 and distribution cable 14 carrying optical fibers 148, 150. See ¶¶ 0039, 0049, 0065-0066, 0086-0088; FIGS. 1, 7, 19), and an outgoing fiber optic cable carrying outgoing optical fibers (’626discloses a distribution cable 14 having optical fibers 150. See ¶¶ [0039], [0049], [0065]–[0066], [0088], FIGS. 1, 7, 19) the terminal comprising: a terminal housing configured to receive respective end sections of the incoming fiber optic cable and the outgoing fiber optic cable ( ’626 discloses enclosure 20 having base 22 and cover 24, with feeder cable 12 and distribution cable 14 received through entry ports 140. See ¶¶ 0051, 0065-0066; FIGS. 1, 6, 7, 22) and defining an interior for receiving fiber optic components therein (’626 discloses interior space 25 holding splitter module holders 44, cassettes 46/48, connector holder blocks 50, enclosure splice trays 134, routing guides 136, grounding assembly 138. See ¶¶ 0051-0056, 0062-0067, 0086-0088), the terminal housing comprising: a base portion defining part of the interior of the terminal housing (’626 discloses base 22 as part of enclosure 20 defining interior space 25. See ¶¶ [0051], [0064]–[0066]) and including some of the fiber optic components therein (’626 discloses fiber management components in the base, including enclosure splice trays 134, routing guides 136, routing clips 72, grounding assembly 138, and strain relief members 380. See ¶¶ [0065]–[0067], [0093]), the base portion configured to be connected to the strand (’626 discloses terminal 10 suspended from strand 16 by hanger bracket assemblies 18. See ¶¶ [0050], [0090]–[0091], FIG. 1. This connects the terminal housing/base portion to the strand in the aerial installation); and a cover portion defining part of the interior of the terminal housing and including some of the fiber optic components therein (’626 discloses components associated with the movable chassis 34, including splitter module holders 44, feeder cassettes 46, distribution cassettes 48, connector holder blocks 50, and protective shield 70. See ¶¶ [0052]–[0055], [0062]–[0064], [0086]–[0088]), the cover portion configured to be connected to the base portion(’626 discloses cover 24 hinged to base 22 by cover hinge 28. See ¶¶ [0051], [0057]) and moveable between an opened position in which the interior of the terminal housing is accessible (‘626 discloses cover 24 opened to provide access to the interior
space 25 and movable chassis 34. See ¶¶ [0057]–[0064]), and a closed position in which the interior of the terminal housing is inaccessible (’626 discloses cover 24 hinged to base 22 by cover hinge 28 and fastened by draw latches 32. See ¶¶ [0051], [0055], [0064]).
‘626 discloses most of claim 1’s general enclosure/strand/cable features as shown above, but claim 1’s language is broad enough that the limitation “including some of the fiber optic components therein” can read on the movable chassis/components in ’626. To the extent any feature is viewed as not expressly mapped, US ’675 reinforces the conventional partition of components between base and cover portions (’675 discloses base 10 / lid 20 receiving cable ends. See ¶¶ [0031], [0032], [0043], [0051], FIGS. 1, 6, 7; 675 also discloses components carried in the lid/cover portion, including splitter accommodation tray 60 secured to top wall 21 of lid 20.See ¶¶ 0042-0044, 0022, FIGS. 3, 5A, 6; ’675 discloses interior space receiving fusion trays 40 and splitter accommodation tray 60. See ¶¶ [0031], [0042]–[0044], [0044]–[0045], FIGS. 3, 6; ‘675 also discloses lid 20 hinged to base 10. See ¶¶ 0031, 0054; ’675 discloses lid 20 open to access the interior, including fusion trays and splitter tray. See ¶¶ [0014], [0022], [0029], [0034], [0042]–[0044], FIGS. 3–6). The combination would have been obvious because both references address the same problem: compact, serviceable fiber optic terminals with protected internal components and accessible cable management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings because both references are directed to fiber optic terminals with compartmentalized internal components for installation/service access, and both teach hinged access to internal fiber management components. The combination would predictably improve packaging flexibility and service access while maintaining enclosure utility.
As to claim 2, ‘626 the strand mounted terminal of claim 1, wherein one of the base portion of the terminal housing or the cover portion of the terminal housing includes at least one latch for releasably securing the cover portion in the closed position ( ’626 discloses fasteners 32, shown as draw latches, securing cover 24 to base 22.; The draw latches 32 are used to keep the cover 24 closed on the base 22 and are releasable to permit opening. See ¶ [0051], FIG. 1).
As to claim 3, ‘626 discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 1, wherein the terminal housing includes a limit mechanism to restrict movement of the cover portion of the terminal housing relative to the base portion of the terminal housing in the opened position (626 discloses a connection assembly 30 attached between cover 24 and base 22. See ¶ [0051], FIGS. 3–4.. ’626 also states that the connection assembly 30 is provided to limit the opening of the cover 24. See WO ’626 ¶ [0051].
As to claim 4, ‘626 discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 1, wherein when the terminal is mounted to the strand, the cover portion of the terminal housing is configured to open in a vertically downward direction and close in a vertically upward direction relative to the base portion of the terminal housing (’626 discloses a strand-mounted enclosure 20 with cover 24 hinged at lower edge 26. See ¶ [0051], FIG. 1. The natural opening/closing motion of a bottom-hinged cover in the strand-mounted aerial orientation would place the cover in a downward-open position relative to the base). Even if ‘626 does not expressly use the words “vertically downward” and “vertically upward,” the geometry shown in FIG. 1 and the strand-mounted orientation would make such movement an obvious consequence of the disclosed structure.
As to claim 5, ‘626 discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 1, wherein the fiber optic components contained in the terminal comprise (’626 discloses multiple internal fiber optic components, including splitter module holders 44, cassettes 46/48, connector holder blocks 50, enclosure splice trays 134, routing guides 136, routing clips 72, etc. see ¶¶ [0052]–[0056], [0064]–[0067], [0086]–[0088]): an adapter housing including a plurality of adapters ( ’626 also discloses fiber optic adapters 206 in cassettes. See WO ’626 ¶¶ [0072], [0078]–[0080]), each of the plurality of adapters defining at least one front port and at least one rear port (‘626 discloses adaptors 206 having a first input end 210 and a second input end 212. These are located opposite sides of the cassette front wall 188, with the first end accessible from the front section 182 and the second section end accessible from the rear section 184; see [0072]–[0077]; Figs. 10-12); and a splitter housing including at least one splitter module ( ‘626 discloses splitter module holder 44 and splitter modules 152; see ¶¶ [0067]–[0069], FIGS. 8–9) wherein the adapter housing is connected to and substantially contained in the base portion of the terminal housing ( 626’ discloses cassettes and adapters in a movable chassis, not expressly an adapter housing substantially contained in the base portion; see ¶¶ [0071]–[0080]).
‘626 does not explicitly disclose the limitation such as, adapter housing substantially contained in the base portion, and wherein the splitter housing is connected to and substantially contained in the cover portion of the terminal housing.
‘675 discloses a termination/derivation box having a base and hinged lid, where the lid carries a splitter accommodation tray having splitter and/or fiber accommodation means, and where the box also includes output adapters mounted on the lid for connection to terminal cables. See, e.g., paragraphs [0015]–[0017], [0042]–[0044], [0042]–[0044], [0054]–[0055], and FIGS. 3, 5A, and 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modular optical terminal of ‘626 in view of ‘675 so that the adapter housing is disposed in the base portion and the splitter housing is disposed in the cover portion, because ‘675 expressly teaches placing splitter-related components in the lid while maintaining connectorized output access in the same hinged enclosure architecture. Such a rearrangement would have been a predictable design choice to improve component separation, technician access, and serviceability while maintaining the compact enclosure format taught by ‘626.
As to claim 6, ‘626 discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 5, a frame assembly 218 and cassette over 186 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the adapter housing comprises: a main panel having a front side and a rear side, the main panel carrying the plurality of adapters such that the front ports of the plurality of adapters are accessible from the front side of the main panel and the rear ports of the plurality of adapters are accessible from the rear side of the main panel; and a front panel connected to the main panel and moveable between an opened position in which the front side of the main panel including the front ports of the plurality of adapters is accessible, and a closed position in which the front side of the main panel including the front ports of the plurality of adapters is inaccessible.
‘675 discloses movable panel/cover protecting components access (discloses lid 20 hinged to base 10, with splitter accommodation tray 60 secured to the lid and a protective plate PS (¶¶ [0031], [0042]–[0044], [0054]–[0055]). ‘675 also discloses access/protection of component-facing side ( lid/cover structures that open to expose internal components and close to protect them (¶¶ [0034], [0054], [0055]).
Therefore, under KSR, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626’s adapter housing with a main panel having a front side and a rear side, the main panel carrying the plurality of adapters such that the front ports of the plurality of adapters are accessible from the front side of the main panel and the rear ports of the plurality of adapters are accessible from the rear side of the main panel; and a front panel connected to the main panel and moveable between an opened position in which the front side of the main panel including the front ports of the plurality of adapters is accessible, and a closed position in which the front side of the main panel including the front ports of the plurality of adapters is inaccessible because 626’ teaches front/rear access to adapter ends and ‘675 teaches a movable cover/lid for access and protection of optical components. Adding a movable front panel to the adapter housing would be a predictable design choice to improve protection and serviceability. The motivation would be to protect adaptor ports from accidental contact, provide controlled access during installation, maintain compact modular arrangement and mirror the cover/protection approach used in optical terminals.
As to claim 7, ‘626 discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 6, wherein when the front panel is in the closed position but does not explicitly disclose that the front panel generally overlies the front ports of the plurality of adapters to shield the front ports from contact by other fiber optic components in the terminal.
‘675 discloses protective shield 70 and splitter protective plate PS covering internal components as well as the protective shield against inadvertent physical contact and pinching/catching when the terminal is open or closed (¶¶ [0042]–[0044], [0054]–[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt ‘626’s accessible adapter arrangement with a protective overlaying panel, because both references teach protecting optical components while preserving service access. The motivation would be to reduce accidental contact with adapter ports, protect delicate fiber terminations, maintain organization and environmental protection.
As to claim 8, even though ‘626 discloses fasteners 3, shown as latches, securing cover 24 to base 20 (¶ [0051]) and detent/engagement features in the rail guides 132 that releasably lock inserted components in stop positions ‘626 doesn’t explicitly disclose a front panel latch/lock arrangement in the exact adapter-housing context.
‘675 teaches cover tabs 202 friction-fit into tab notches to retain the cover closes and frame assembly 218 pivoting to a second position and being held there by stop features ( ¶ [0071], [0074]–[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a latch and open-position lock because the adapter housing panel would need secure closer and also need to stable open access during installation/maintenance. Under KSR, using known retention structures in this predictable way is an obvious design choice.
As to claim 9, ‘626 discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 6 as well as opened cover position in a strand-mounted orientation (¶¶ [0050], [0051], [0057], [0090]–[0091], but does not explicitly disclose the specific front-panel toward opening/downward closing direction relative to the main panel.
‘675 teaches a hinged lid/cover structure and movable shield/front access structures that open and close relative to the enclosure to allow access (¶¶ [0031], [0054]–[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the claimed opening direction is largely an orientation consequence of how the panel is mounted in a strand-mounted enclosure and once ‘626’S strand-mounted terminal and ‘675’S hinged protective cover are combined, choosing an upward-opening front panel for access would be an obvious ergonomic and packaging decision. The motivation would be to improve technician access, avoid interference with adjacent components and maintain predictable hinge motion in an outdoor enclosure.
As to claim 10, ’626 teaches a strand-mounted fiber optic terminal with: feeder cable 12 and distribution cable 14, modular cassettes 46/48 with adapters 206, front/rear access to adapter ends, and a movable frame assembly 218 that provides access to the adapters (¶¶ [0050], [0072]–[0076], [0077]–[0080], [0087]–[0088]; FIGS. 10–15, 19). Thus, ’626 teaches the structural setting in which the claimed label would be used.
626, does not explicitly teaches “a rear side of the front panel includes a label configured to provide indicia of port identification.”
‘675 reinforces modular fiber terminal serviceability and component organization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 by adding a label for port identification to the rear side of the front panel.
The motivation would be because fiber optic terminals require accurate port management for technicians to identify ports quickly during installation, reconfiguration, and troubleshooting. Further, in modular fiber enclosures, labels are a conventional way to reduce connection errors and speed work and thus Labels are a routine and predictable field-service feature.
It should also be noted that the claim only adds a predictable informational element as the label does not change the operating principle of the enclosure. It simply provides identification for ports already present in the adapter housing.
Under KSR v. Teleflex, adding a known element for its expected function is obvious when it yields predictable results. Here, a label providing port ID is a predictable way to improve usability.
As to claim 11, ‘626 discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a rear panel connected to the main panel and moveable between an opened position in which the rear side of the main panel including the rear ports of the plurality of adapters is accessible, and a closed position in which the rear side of the main panel including the rear ports of the plurality of adapters is inaccessible.
‘675 teaches a hinged lid/base arrangement with protective cover structures and internal access (¶¶ [0031], [0054]–[0055]).
Therefore, if the front side is provided with a movable protective panel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a corresponding rear panel for symmetric protection and access to rear ports, especially in compact optical terminal where both sides of the adapter array need management. The motivation would be to protect rear ports, enable technician access from both sides, prevent accidental contact and improve organization of connectorized fibers.
As to claim 12, ‘626 discloses rear-side adapter access but not an overlaying rear panel ( ¶¶ [0072]–[0080]).
‘675 teaches protective shielding of internal components by the lid/protective plate structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 by adding a rear panel that shields rear ports for the same reason a front shield would be used which would protect delicate connector interfaces and reduce inadvertent contact.
As to claim 13, ‘626 discloses releasable retention features generally, including fasteners and detent-type locking of movable parts ( ¶¶ [0051], [0083]–[0085]).
However, ‘626 does not explicitly disclose a rear panel lock in the adapter-housing context.
‘675 teaches closure retention via latches and fastening structures ( ¶¶ [0051], [0054], [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 in view of the teachings of ‘675 by providing a lock for the rear panel would be an obvious extension of the front-panel lock because both are required for secure closure and protected access.
As to claim 14, ‘626 discloses splice trays 310, cassettes, routing, and connectorized pigtails (¶¶ [0077]–[0088]). ‘626 also discloses optical fibers 312 spliced to optical fibers 314 and connectorized optical fibers 324 spliced to distribution fibers 150 (¶¶ [0087]–[0088]). ‘626 further discloses connectorized pigtail 318 and connectorized optical fibers 324.
However, ’626 does not expressly disclose a fanout housing attached to an adapter housing in the exact claimed arrangement with connectors received in rear ports of adapters.
‘675 discloses splitters, trays, adapters AS, termination cable CT connected to adapters, and fiber extension routing between components (¶¶ [0017], [0043]–[0044], [0066]–[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 based on the teachings of ‘675 because ‘626 already teaches pigtails/splicing/adapter connectivity while ‘675 teaches organized adapter-base termination and splitter accommodation. Combining hem would predictably produce a fanout-to-adapter termination structure.
The motivation would be to modularize the termination structure, allow field-reconfigurable connectivity, simplify routing of incoming/outgoing fibers and improve serviceability and compatibility with connectorized terminations.
As to claim 15, 626’ discloses the strand mounted terminal of claim 14, wherein the plurality of cable pigtails includes a first group operatively connected to the incoming fiber optic cable (’626 discloses feeder cable 12 and connectorized optical fibers / pigtails routed within the terminal. See WO ’626 ¶¶ [0065]–[0067], [0086]–[0088]), wherein a first group of the plurality of adapters in the adapter housing defines a feeder field (’626 discloses adapters 206 in cassettes 46, 48, and feeder-side routing to adapter structures, but does not expressly use the term “feeder field.” See ¶¶ [0072]–[0080], [0087]–[0088]), and wherein the fiber optic connector of the first group of the plurality of cable pigtails is received in a rear port of a respective one of the plurality of adapters that defines the feeder field (’626 discloses adapters 206 having opposite ends 210, 212, with the second end opening into the rear section 184. See ¶¶ [0072]–[0078].
‘626 does not explicitly disclose “a first group of the plurality of adapters in the adapter housing defines a feeder field”
‘675 supports the concept of a modular optical terminal with separated optical functions, organized adapter/splitter accommodation, and routing between internal fiber elements and external connectors. Although US ’675 does not expressly say “feeder field,” it teaches the kind of functionally grouped adapter arrangement that the claim recites. See ¶¶ [0017], [0042]–[0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 to group a first set of adapters as a feeder field and connect the incoming-side pigtails to the rear ports of those adapters in order to improve routing organization, serviceability, and separation of feeder-side and distribution-side connections, as taught by the combined prior arts.
As to claim 16, 626’ discloses second group of pigtails operatively connected to outgoing fiber optic cable (¶¶ [0049], [0088]), second group of adapters in adapter housing (¶¶ [0072]–[0080]) and fiber optic connector received in rear port of respective adapter (¶¶ [0072]–[0075], [0077]–[0080])
However, ‘626 does not explicitly discloses the outgoing-side-grouping a “distribution field”.
‘675 teaches distribution cable CT/termination-side connections, output adapters AS and organized fiber extension routing and terminal-side connectivity (Fig. 6; ¶¶ [0017], [0043]–[0044], [0066]–[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 based on the teachings of ‘675 because ‘626 already discloses a distribution cable and adapter-based termination and ‘675 reinforces distributing splitter/termination connections through labeled adapter groups. APOSITA would have found it obvious to group and identify adapters as a distribution field to aid installation and service.
The motivation would be to separate outgoing/distribution terminations from feeder-side terminations, improve organization and field service and simplify routing and reduce connections errors.
As to claim 17, ‘626 discloses splitter module holder 44, splitter modules 152, splitter legs / connectorized pigtails and routing of splitter outputs to connector holder blocks or other adapters (¶¶ [0067]–[0069], [0087]–[0088]; FIGS. 8–9, 19).
’626 does not expressly state that the splitter module pigtails are received in the “front port” of the adapters in the exact claim wording, although it clearly teaches the optical routing from splitter outputs to adapter interfaces.
‘675 teaches splitter accommodation tray 60, splitter and/or fiber accommodation means MSF, output adapters AS on lid 20 and split fiber extensions EF2 connected to output adapters (US ¶¶ [0017], [0042]–[0044], [0043]; FIG. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 based on the teachings of ‘675 because ’626 teaches splitter outputs and adapter-based termination; US ’675 teaches the splitter accommodation tray and output-adapter arrangement. Combining them would have predictably yielded splitter pigtails terminating into adapter front ports as part of a modular optical terminal.
The motivation would be to organize splitter outputs in a compact enclosure, enable subscriber-facing terminations through standard adapters and improve modular service and reconfiguration.
As to claim 18, ‘626 teaches feeder cable 12, splitter module 152, routing from input fibers to splitter output fibers and adapter-connected terminations (¶¶ [0049], [0065]–[0067], [0087]–[0088]; FIGS. 7, 19).
626’ does not explicitly teaches “feeder field”.
‘675 teaches splitter accommodation tray 60, optical routing between feeder-side and adapter-side components and modular output adapter arrangement (¶¶ [0017], [0042]–[0044], [0043]); FIG. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 based on the teachings of ‘675 to designate a subset of adapters as a feeder field and connect splitter module pigtails to those adapters because that is a straightforward way to organize the feeder-side connections in a configurable terminal.
The motivation would be align splitter outputs with feeder-side management, create orderly adapter groupings and improve routing clarity and installation flexibility.
As to claim 19, ’626 teaches distribution cable 14, splitter outputs/connectorized legs and adapter-based routing and termination (WO ¶¶ [0049], [0087]–[0088], [0072]–[0080]; FIGS. 7, 19).
However, ‘626 does not explicitly discloses “distribution field”.
‘675 teaches outgoing/distribution-side adapter connections and output adapter structures (¶¶ [0017], [0043]–[0044], [0066]–[0067]; FIG. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘626 based on the teachings of ‘675. A POSITA would have been motivated to organize the outgoing-side adapter group as a distribution field to distinguish it from feeder-side adapters, with predictable benefits in port labeling, routing, and serviceability.
As to claim 20, ‘626 teaches connector holder blocks 50, a parking area 42, connector holders 322 for splitter legs, and parking of splitter output connectors until needed (WO ¶¶ [0052], [0062]–[0064], [0087]–[0088]; FIGS. 1, 6, 19).
As to claim 21, ’626 discloses fiber management devices in both enclosure portions, including: routing guides, routing clips, splice trays, cable guides, protective shield / routing structures and components in the movable chassis and base area (¶¶ [0052]–[0056], [0062]–[0067], [0093]; FIGS. 5, 6, 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)2725560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights