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 statement filed 8/29/2024 has been considered.
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) 39- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,731,361 B2 to Anderson et al. (hereinafter “Anderson”) in view of US Patent No. 6,748,155 B2 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 39, Anderson discloses an equipment panel comprising: a chassis (equipment rack 16 in Fig. 6) defining an interior accessible through an open front; and a tray (20 in Fig. 1) disposed within the interior of the chassis, the tray being slidable relative to the chassis along a front-to-rear axis (Figs. 1-2; column 5, lines 29-44), the tray including a termination region (40 in Fig. 1) and a cable region (24 in Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 41-42), the termination region being located forward of the cable region, the termination region including a lower row of front-facing ports and an upper row of front-facing ports carried with the tray when the tray is slid relative to the chassis (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 45-62), wherein the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are each configured to receive a plurality of adapters (42 in Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 45-62), and wherein at least one of the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are pivotable relative to each other about one or more pivot points directly connected to the plurality of adapters (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 63- col. 6, ll. 13).
However, it does not explicitly disclose that the cable region of the tray is a splice region having a lower layer and an upper layer configured to hold a plurality of optical splices in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, such features are known in the art. For example, Kim discloses sliding trays for a fiber optic telecommunications equipment rack, wherein a tray comprises multiple levels of cable management structures including optical splices (Fig. 11; col. 5, ll. 58-62). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such features as advantageous and desirable since optical splices allow for a reliable, low-loss, and organized way of joining multiple optical fibers for efficient optical path routing within fiber optic telecommunications cabinet. 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 Anderson to have the cable region of the tray to be a splice region having a lower layer and an upper layers configured to hold a plurality of optical splices in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 40, Anderson discloses wherein the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are in an unpivoted use position when the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are parallel to each other (e.g. Fig. 4 of Anderson).
Regarding claim 41, Anderson discloses wherein the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are in a pivoted access position when the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are pivoted relative to each other such that there is an angle between the lower row of front-facing ports and the upper row of front-facing ports (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 42, Anderson in view of Kim renders the claimed equipment panel of claim 39 obvious as discussed above. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose that the angle between the upper and lower row of front-facing ports is about 1 to 20 degrees as claimed. On the other hand, such angles would have been fully within the knowledge and the know-how of an ordinary skilled artisan. Such angles would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable since it would allow for easy access to the densely arranged fiber optic ports on the equipment trays. 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 Anderson to have the angle between the upper and lower row of front-facing ports is about 1 to 20 degrees as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 43, Anderson discloses wherein the upper row of the front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports each are configured to receive at least 24 adapters (col. 2, ll. 61-66).
Regarding claim 44, Anderson discloses wherein the termination region also comprises a middle row of front-facing ports (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 63- col. 6, ll. 13).
Regarding claim 45, Anderson discloses wherein the middle row of front-facing ports is configured to receive a plurality of adapters, and the middle row of front-facing ports is pivotable relative to the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports about one or more pivot points directly connected to the plurality of adapters (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 63- col. 6, ll. 13).
Regarding claim 46, Anderson discloses wherein the tray is one of a plurality of like trays separately slidable relative to the chassis (Fig. 6; col. 1, ll. 11-17, ll. 19-40; col. 2, ll. 31-66).
Regarding claim 47, Anderson in view of Kim renders the equipment panel of claim 39 obvious as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose that the forward facing ports of each tray receive at least 576 fibers as claimed. On the other hand, Anderson discloses other multiple panel rack units are possible to accommodate more fiber connections (col. 2, ll. 38-43). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that forward facing ports of each traying receiving at least 576 fibers would be advantageous and desirable because it would allow for very high density fiber optic interconnections within a limited telecom rack space. 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 Anderson to have the forward facing ports of each tray receive at least 576 fiber as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 48, Anderson discloses wherein teach tray has a height of 1RU within the chassis (col. 2, ll. 61-63).
Regarding claim 49, Anderson discloses a tray (20 in Fig. 1) disposed within the interior of the chassis, the tray including a termination region (40 in Fig. 1) and a cable region (24 in Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 41-42), the termination region being located forward of the cable region, the termination region including a lower row of front-facing ports and an upper row of front-facing ports carried with the tray (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 45-62), wherein the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are each configured to receive a plurality of adapters (42 in Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 45-62), and wherein at least one of the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are pivotable relative to each other about one or more pivot points directly connected to the plurality of adapters (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 63- col. 6, ll. 13).
However, it does not explicitly disclose that the cable region of the tray is a splice region as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, such features are known in the art. For example, Kim discloses sliding trays for a fiber optic telecommunications equipment rack, wherein a tray comprises multiple levels of cable management structures including optical splices (Fig. 11; col. 5, ll. 58-62). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such features as advantageous and desirable since optical splices allow for a reliable, low-loss, and organized way of joining multiple optical fibers for efficient optical path routing within fiber optic telecommunications cabinet. 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 Anderson to have the cable region of the tray to be a splice region having a lower layer and an upper layers configured to hold a plurality of optical splices in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 50, Anderson discloses wherein the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are in an unpivoted use position when the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are parallel to each other (e.g. Fig. 4 of Anderson).
Regarding claim 51, Anderson discloses wherein the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are in a pivoted access position when the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports are pivoted relative to each other such that there is an angle between the lower row of front-facing ports and the upper row of front-facing ports (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 52, Anderson in view of Kim renders the claimed equipment panel of claim 39 obvious as discussed above. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose that the angle between the upper and lower row of front-facing ports is about 1 to 20 degrees as claimed. On the other hand, such angles would have been fully within the knowledge and the know-how of an ordinary skilled artisan. Such angles would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable since it would allow for easy access to the densely arranged fiber optic ports on the equipment trays. 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 Anderson to have the angle between the upper and lower row of front-facing ports is about 1 to 20 degrees as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 53, Anderson discloses wherein the upper row of the front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports each are configured to receive at least 24 adapters (col. 2, ll. 61-66).
Regarding claim 54, Anderson discloses wherein the termination region also comprises a middle row of front-facing ports (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 63- col. 6, ll. 13).
Regarding claim 55, Anderson discloses wherein the middle row of front-facing ports is configured to receive a plurality of adapters, and the middle row of front-facing ports is pivotable relative to the upper row of front-facing ports and the lower row of front-facing ports about one or more pivot points directly connected to the plurality of adapters (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 63- col. 6, ll. 13).
Regarding claim 56, Anderson discloses wherein the tray is one of a plurality of like trays separately slidable relative to the chassis (Fig. 6; col. 1, ll. 11-17, ll. 19-40; col. 2, ll. 31-66).
Regarding claim 57, Anderson in view of Kim renders the equipment panel of claim 39 obvious as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose that the forward facing ports of each tray receive at least 576 fibers as claimed. On the other hand, Anderson discloses other multiple panel rack units are possible to accommodate more fiber connections (col. 2, ll. 38-43). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that forward facing ports of each traying receiving at least 576 fibers would be advantageous and desirable because it would allow for very high density fiber optic interconnections within a limited telecom rack space. 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 Anderson to have the forward facing ports of each tray receive at least 576 fiber as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 58, Anderson discloses wherein teach tray has a height of 1RU within the chassis (col. 2, ll. 61-63).
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