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 .
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 § 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
The claim recites “one of the first configuration and the second configuration of the system of claim 10 housed in the closure volume.” Because claim 10 is a method claim rather than a system claim, the phrase “system of claim 10” creates internal inconsistency and uncertainty as to the scope of the claim. The claim therefore fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The intended antecedent appears to be claim 11. Accordingly, claim 20 is objected to as not properly depending from the correct claim and as being unclear.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARIKH et al., WO 2009/091465 A2 (hereinafter D1) in view of ALLEN, US 2015/0117829 A1 (hereinafter D2) and CLAESSENS et al., WO 2021/163356 A1 (hereinafter D1).
As to claim 1, D1 teaches an optical fiber management organizer for a telecommunications closure, comprising a first basket for storing loops or partial loops of optical fibers and optical fiber management trays configured to be pivotally mounted at a first side of the first basket (See, pp. 7–12, Figs. 4A–7E, claims 1, 2, 4–7, 8, 12, 18–20).
D1 does not expressly teach a second basket for storing loops or partial loops of optical fibers, the first basket and the second basket being configured such that the second basket can be mounted directly to a second side of the first basket at a first mounting location, the second side being opposite the first side.
D2 from the same filed of endeavor teaches a fiber management tray having opposite first and second major sides, with optical fibers stored and routed on opposite sides of the tray (See, pp. 3-8; Figs. 1-4; claims 1, 4, 5, 14-16, 23-27).
D3 from the same field of endeavor teaches back-to-back tray and basket volumes facing opposite directions (See, pp. 14–16).
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 the organizer of D1 to include a second basket for storing loops or partial loops of optical fibers, the first basket and the second basket being configured such that the second basket can be mounted directly to a second side of the first basket at a first mounting location, the second side being opposite the first side, as taught by D2 and D3, in order to increase fiber storage capacity, segregate fiber groups, reduce crossover, and improve routing flexibility within a compact telecommunications closure.
As to claim 2, D1 teaches a basket-based slack storage arrangement for optical fibers, including a support basket with multilayer slack storage layers (See, pp. 7–10, Figs. 4A–5, claims 1, 12, 20).
D1 does not expressly teach that when a second basket is mounted directly to the opposite side of the first basket, the basket volumes are back-to-back.
D3 expressly teaches back-to-back fiber management tray and basket volumes facing opposite directions (See, pp. 14–16).
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 the basket arrangement of D1 when modified by D2 to include back-to-back basket volumes as taught by D3 because opposite-facing storage regions allow greater packing density and better separation of fiber management functions within a closure.
As to claim 3, D1 teaches a generally U-shaped support basket and storage of optical fiber slack in looped configurations ( See, pp. 7–10).
D1 does not expressly teach the specific arrangement in which the first basket is configured to store optical fibers in U-shapes and the second basket is configured to store optical fibers in full loops.
D2 teaches opposite-side fiber management regions on a tray, with optical fibers routed and stored on opposite major sides ( See, pp. 3–8, Figs. 1–4, claims 1, 4, 5, 14–16, 23–27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the loop geometry between the two baskets such that the first basket is configured to store optical fibers in U-shapes and the second basket is configured to store optical fibers in full loops to optimize slack storage, bend-radius compliance, and fiber segregation. The exact geometry of the storage loops is a routine design choice depending on fiber count, cable slack, and enclosure geometry.
As to claim 4, D1 teaches a tray tower configured to support pivotally mounted fiber management trays ( See, pp. 8–12, Figs. 5–7E).
D1 does not expressly teach the tower being mounted to the first mounting location in the context of a second basket on the opposite side of the first basket.
D2 teaches a closure with internal tray structures used for fiber management on opposite sides, and D3 teaches multiple pivotally mounted trays and opposite-side tray access ( See D2, pp. 3–8; D3, pp. 12–16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tower arrangement of D1 into the opposite-side fiber management framework of D2 and D3, in order to support additional trays at the second side of the basket while preserving a compact and serviceable arrangement.
As to claim 5, D1 teaches a support basket with mounting features and a tray tower supporting pivotally mounted trays, including notches, slots, and support platform positioning (See, pp. 8–10).
D1 does not expressly disclose a second mounting location at the first side of the basket in the exact form recited.
D2 teaches pivotable tray structures in a closure (See pp. 3–8).
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 an additional mounting location on the basket and mount a tower thereto because such a change is a routine structural variation to support different tray configurations and optimize access. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in view of the modular and pivoting tray arrangements shown in D1 and D2.
As to claim 6, D1 teaches cable anchoring and fixation features, including cable strain relief tie downs and structures for securing buffer tubes and cables (See, pp. 7–10).
D1 does not expressly teach plates for mounting cable jacket fixation subassemblies.
D2 teaches cable anchoring and fixation regions, including buffer tube fixation regions and a closure arranged to manage cable entry and routing (See, pp. 7–10, particularly the disclosure of fixation regions and closure routing structures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mounting plates for cable jacket fixation subassemblies into the organizer of D1 because cable fixation and strain relief are standard needs in telecommunications closures, and the addition of plates would be a predictable implementation of the cable anchoring concepts taught by D2 and D3.
As to claim 7, D1 teaches basket-supported structures and modular mounting components, but does not expressly disclose that the plates and the first basket form a single piece of unitary construction (See, pp. 6–8).
D2 teaches integrated housing and internal support structures for fiber management (See, pp. 3–8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plates and first basket as a unitary structure because such construction reduces the number of parts, simplifies assembly, and improves rigidity. This is a routine design optimization consistent with the integrated support structures taught by the references.
As to claim 8, D1 expressly teaches housing pieces configured to cooperate to define a sealable and re-enterable closure volume, and a fiber management organizer housed in the closure ( See, pp. 11–19, especially closure 300 and top portion 304 / bottom portion 302)
D2 teaches a housing with internal fiber management components and pivotable access structures (See, pp. 3–8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the organizer of claim 1 in the closure of D1 because the references address the same problem of compact, accessible, and re-enterable fiber management within a sealed telecommunications enclosure.
As to claim 9, D1 teaches a basket for storing loops or partial loops of optical fibers and a first optical fiber management tray configured to be pivotally mounted at a first side of the basket. D1 further teaches splice trays and splice-holding structures (See, pp. 7–12).
D1 does not expressly teach a second optical fiber management tray mounted at the opposite side of the basket, where the first tray is configured to support optical fiber splices and the second tray is configured to support an optical fiber signal splitting component.
D2 teaches two-sided fiber management with opposite major sides, and D3 teaches back-to-back tray/basket arrangements (See D2, pp. 3–8; D3, pp. 14–16).
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 the second tray on the opposite side of the basket and to allocate splice functions to one tray and signal splitting functions to the other, because such separation improves routing organization, reduces congestion, and facilitates access and maintenance in a compact closure.
As to claim 10, D1 teaches routing optical fibers via splices supported on a tray within a telecommunications closure, but does not expressly teach routing optical fibers via a signal splitting component supported on a second, opposite-side tray while performing no signal splitting on the first tray.
D2 and D3 teach opposite-side fiber management and functional separation of fiber-routing regions (See D2, pp. 3–8; D3, pp. 14–16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the claimed method because once the apparatus of claim 9 is provided, routing splices on one tray and splitting on the other tray is the intended and predictable use of the combined structure, and separating those functions would reduce crossover and improve serviceability.
As to claim 11, D1 teaches an optical fiber management organizer for a telecommunications closure including a basket for storing loops or partial loops of optical fibers and optical fiber management trays pivotally mounted relative to the basket and closure structure (See, pp. 7–12, Figs. 4A–7E, claims 1, 2, 4–8, 12, 18–20).
D1 does not expressly teach an organizer configurable into a first configuration and a second configuration, where the first configuration includes a second basket mounted at a second side of the first basket and the second configuration includes a second optical fiber management tray pivotally supported at the second side of the basket.
D2 teaches a two-sided fiber management tray having opposite sides with fiber management functions on each side, and D3 teaches back-to-back tray/basket arrangements and opposite-side tray support ( See D2, pp. 3–8, Figs. 1–4, claims 1, 4, 5, 14–16, 23–27; D3, pp. 12–16).
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 the organizer of D1 in a selectable configuration having either a second basket or a second tray at the opposite side, because the references teach modular fiber management structures that can be arranged to increase storage density, separate fiber functions, and support differing installation needs within a compact telecommunications closure.
As to claim 12, D1 teaches an organizer and closure environment for routing and managing optical fibers, but does not expressly teach selecting between alternative organizer configurations based on the number and/or type of telecommunications cables entering a telecommunications closure, nor configuring the organizer according to the selected configuration.
D2 teaches fiber management structures designed to accommodate different cable and closure layouts, and D3 teaches modular back-to-back tray and basket arrangements ( See D2, pp. 3–8; D3, pp. 12–16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of the alternative configurations based on cable count and cable type because a person of ordinary skill would naturally configure a fiber organizer to match the expected fiber density, cable diameter, and routing complexity, thereby optimizing space, access, and serviceability in the closure.
As to claim 13, D1 teaches modular fiber-management structures and tray arrangements, but does not expressly teach providing the non-selected configuration prior to selection and swapping a piece of the non-selected configuration with another piece.
D2 teaches modular closure components and removable strain-relief / support structures, and D3 teaches back-to-back tray/basket structures that are assembled from support components ( See D2, pp. 8–10; D3, pp. 12–16).
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 the other configuration in advance and to swap components because modularity is a known advantage in fiber closure design, allowing an installer to tailor the organizer to the field condition without redesigning the entire system.
As to claim 14, D1 teaches a basket-support and tray-support arrangement that can be modified by mounting components differently, but does not expressly disclose swapping a basket and a tower configured to pivotally support at least one optical fiber management tray.
D1 however, teach a support basket and tray tower arrangement, and D3 teaches opposite-side tray/basket configurations. D2 teaches modular closure-mounted support structures and pivotable tray access (See D1, pp. 8–12; D2, pp. 3–8, 8–10; D3, pp. 12–16)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the basket and tower as claimed because such a swap is a predictable modular rearrangement that would permit the same basic fiber-management components to be deployed in different orientations depending on the closure’s cable layout and access requirements.
As to claim 15, D1 teaches a basket-based slack storage arrangement for optical fibers, but does not expressly teach that the first basket and second basket, when mounted in the first configuration, define basket volumes that are back-to-back.
D3 expressly teaches back-to-back fiber management tray and basket volumes facing opposite directions (See, pp. 14–16).
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 the organizer of D1 to include back-to-back basket volumes because opposite-facing storage regions provide greater packing density, better separation of fiber groups, and improved routing flexibility within a compact telecommunications closure.
As to claim 16, D1 teaches a generally U-shaped support basket and loop/slack storage for optical fibers, but does not expressly teach that the first basket stores optical fibers in U-shapes while the second basket stores optical fibers in full loops (See, pp. 7–10).
D2 teaches opposite-side fiber-management regions and looped routing paths on different sides of a tray (See, pp. 3–8, Figs. 1–4, claims 1, 4, 5, 14–16, 23–27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the storage geometry between the two baskets to optimize slack storage, bend-radius compliance, and fiber segregation, because the exact loop geometry is a routine design choice driven by fiber count, cable slack, and enclosure geometry.
As to claim 17, D1 teaches a support basket and a tray tower arrangement for pivotally supporting fiber management trays, but does not expressly teach each configuration including a first tower mounted directly to the first basket at the first side and, in the second configuration, a second tower mounted directly to the first basket at the second side, each pivotally supporting a respective tray.
D3 teaches opposite-side and back-to-back tray support arrangements, and D2 teaches pivotable tray structures within a closure (See D3, pp. 12–16; D2, pp. 3–8).
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 separate tower mountings at opposite sides of the basket because modular support structures are a predictable means of adapting the organizer to differing closure layouts while preserving access to the trays.
As to claim 18, D1 teaches cable anchoring and fixation features, including cable strain relief tie downs and structures for securing buffer tubes and cables (See, pp. 7–10). D1 does not expressly disclose plates for mounting cable jacket fixation subassemblies.
D2 teaches cable anchoring and fixation regions, including buffer tube fixation regions and a closure configured to manage cable entry and routing (See, pp. 7–10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate plates for mounting cable jacket fixation subassemblies because cable fixation and strain relief are standard requirements in telecommunications closures, and such plates would be a predictable implementation of the anchoring concepts already taught by the references.
As to claim 19, D1 teaches basket-supported structures and modular mounting components, but does not expressly disclose that the plates and the first basket form a single piece of unitary construction (See, pp. 6–8).
D2 teaches integrated housing and internal support structures for fiber management (See, pp. 3–8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plates and first basket as a unitary structure because such construction reduces part count, simplifies assembly, and improves rigidity, which are routine design considerations in fiber closure hardware.
As to claim 20, D1 teaches housing pieces configured to cooperate to define a sealable and re-enterable closure volume and teaches a fiber management organizer housed in the closure (See, pp. 11–19, especially closure 300 and top portion 304 / bottom portion 302).
D1 does not expressly teach housing one of the first configuration and the second configuration of the system of claim 11 in the closure volume because claim 11 itself recites the selectable configuration features.
D2 teaches a housing with internal fiber management components and pivotable access structures, and D3 teaches back-to-back tray/basket arrangements (See D2, pp. 3–8; D3, pp. 12–16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to house either configuration of the system in the closure volume because the references address the same problem of compact, accessible, and re-enterable fiber management within a sealed telecommunications enclosure.
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