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
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on October 9, 2024, and April 10, 2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “other walls” in claim 11, line 4, and claim 28, line 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Inventorship
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a minor typographical error on the third line should be--from a left end-. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-15 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 line 7 of claim 11 recites—a third ratio of a maximum dimension of each of the outer walls to a maximum width of the surface parallel to the second axis is less than 0.7—it is not where the plurality of outer walls are since there is only one outer wall 164 forming the circumference of the tray 106. The Specification does not further clarify the determination of the third ratio; therefore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bound of the third ratio. The art rejection below reflects the structures of the tray as recited in claim 11, but the limitation regarding the third ratio cannot be determined and will be disregarded.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner shall consider the surface to refer to the fiber management surface.
Claim 28 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.
Claim 28 in lines 17-18 recites—a ratio of a maximum dimension of each of the outer walls to a maximum width of the surface parallel to the second axis is less than 0.7—is unclear because the outer wall has three dimensions - length, width, and height. The Specification discloses “the fiber management region includes other walls in addition to the outer wall that define receivers for receiving the splice bodies of splices between rollable fiber fibers [sic]; and wherein a ratio of a maximum dimension of each of the outer walls to a maximum width of the surface parallel to the second axis is less than 0.7” (Specification, page 3, lines 25-32). It is not clear which dimension, length, width, or height, is used to determine the ratio as recited in claim 28. For examination purposes, the art rejection below reflects the structures of the tray as recited in claim 28, but the limitation regarding the ratio cannot be determined and will be disregarded. Claims 29-30 also recite the ratio and without the dimension, the examiner is unable to determine value or range of values in claims 29-30, thus, claims 29-30 will also be disregarded in the art rejection.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-13, 14, 18-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geens et al. (US 2020/0124803 A1, herein “Geens”) in view of Geens et al. (US 2018/0348463 A1, herein “pg-pub 463”) and in view of PPC Fiber Splice Tray specification sheet (Fiber Splice Tray Spec Sheet, Revision 1, July 22, 2021).
Regarding claims 1-4, Geens discloses a fiber management tray for managing optical fibers comprising:
a tray body (main body 102) extending from the front end of the tray to the back end of the tray a long a first axis (see annotated Fig. 1), the tray extending from a left end of the tray to the right end of the tray along a second axis, the tray extending from the top end of the tray to a bottom end of the tray along a third axis, the first axis, the second axis and the third axis being mutually perpendicular, the tray body including:
couplers (snap-in pivot devices 126, and hinge members 124) at the back end of the tray for pivotally coupling the fiber management tray to a tray mounting plate or other type of housing/enclosure (Para [0053]); and
a tray interior volume defined by:
a fiber management surface (base 104); and
an outer wall (fiber containment wall 106) projecting from the fiber management surface (104) parallel to the third axis to define a depth of the interior, the depth extending parallel to the third axis from a top end of the wall to the surface (See Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Geens does not disclose the fiber management tray is coupled to a slidable distribution tray.
However, Geens do not explicitly disclose the fiber management trays are coupled to a slidable distribution tray.
Pg-pub ‘463 teaches an optical fiber distribution system (Fig. 1: 12) and the distribution system may include pull-out drawers (Para [0017]). Thus, the examiner considers the pull-out drawer is a slidable enclosure for mounting fiber management trays.
Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 do not teach a ratio of the depth to a maximum length of the surface parallel to the first axis is at least 0.050, 0.055, 0.058, or between 0.059 to 0.060.
PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet presented specifications for a splice tray (24-Way Universal) with dimensions L = 160, W = 105mm, H = 10mm. Thus, depth to maximum length ratio of the splice tray is 0.0625. This ratio reads on the values and range of claims 2-4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the ratio of the depth to a maximum length of the base is a result-effective variable describing the depth of the tray must be in the range of 0.050 to 0.060 (claims 2-4) of the total tray length to ensure the tray has enough depth to house, route, and protect the optical fibers without exceeding the bend radius limits. One would be motivated to determine the depth to length ratio of the tray to determine the interior volume of the tray is capable of housing the number of fibers therein.
Regarding the preamble “A fiber management tray for managing rollable fiber ribbons,” the examiner considers of the structure of the fiber management tray is defined by the particular limitations, structures, and functions as recited in the body of claim 1. Since the rollable fiber ribbons is not reinvoked in the body of the claim to further define the claim, the examiner considers Geens in view of PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach all the limitations of claims 1-4. Moreover, the function of the rollable fiber ribbons as recited in claim 1 and 5 appears to treat the rollable fiber ribbons as unit(s) routing through the passages of the tray. For this reason, the examiner shall consider the rollable ribbon fiber to be routed in similar manners as the optical fiber cables as shown in Geen’s Fig. 22, optical fiber 11.
Regarding claims 11-13, Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach the invention of claim 1, and Geens further teach the tray body (Fig. 1: 100) defines within the interior volume a fiber routing region (main fiber management path 134) and a fiber management region (lobes 128, connector assembly 150, and fingers and tines 130, 132);
wherein the fiber management region (128, 230, 132) includes other walls (walls of adjacent optical connectors 154) in addition to the outer wall.
However, Geens do not disclose the other walls define receivers for receiving splice bodies of splices between optical fibers.
Geens incorporated by reference incorporated by reference (Para [0056]) the teaching of Pg-pub 2014/0321825 (Claessens et al.) wherein Fig. 11 shows fiber management region includes other walls (at splice holder 44) in addition to the outer wall that define receivers for receiving splice bodies of splices between optical fibers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the splice holder 44 in the incorporated teaching can be interchangeable with the connector assembly 150 of Geens. The interchanged splice holders allows the tray to hold extra lengths of fibers, while the connector assembly allow the trays to be interconnection ports/hubs within the fiber management cabinet. One motivation for interchanging connector assembly with splice holder is to give flexibility to the function of the fiber tray.
PNG
media_image2.png
620
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Geens in view of PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet do not explicitly teach a third ratio of a maximum dimension of each of the outer walls to a maximum width of the surface parallel to the second axis is less than 0.7, 0.5, or 0.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the result-effective variable of the , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim 14. Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach the invention of claim 11 and Geens further teach “none of the outer walls includes a curved extension”. The smooth outer wall (106) of Geens does not have any extension.
Claim 18-19 and 23. Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach the invention of claim 1, Pg-pub ‘463 further teaches at least six of the fiber management trays are pivotally mounted to a body of the distribution tray and positioned entirely within an interior volume defined by the body of the fiber distribution tray. Fig. 1 shows columns of hinge structures (18) in the center of the fiber distribution tray (12). Each row of hinge structures (18) is for pivotally mounting one tray. Therefore, there are at least six visible hinge structures (18) for mounting at least six trays. Pg-pub ‘463 teaches an optical fiber distribution system (Fig. 1: 12) and the distribution system may include pull-out drawers (Para [0017]). Thus, the examiner considers the pull-out drawers is a slidable enclosure for mounting fiber management tray. Thus, the teaching in Pg-pub ‘463 implies the pull-out drawer are mounted to a rack wherein the drawers can be pushed-in for storage and pulled-out for access. Fig. 1 shows the hinge structures (18) are spaced closely together such that the mounted trays would overlap others trays in the interior volume of the fiber distribution tray.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geens in view of Pg-pub ’463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gutierrez et al. (WO-2020/205313 A1, herein “Gutierrez”).
Claims 5-10. Geens in view of Pg-pub ’463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach the invention of claim 1. Geens further discloses the tray body defines opposing entryways (first end 116 and second end 118) by which the optical fibers can enter the tray interior volume (see Fig. 22, Paras [0050]-[0051]);
wherein the outer wall (106) defines a gap in the outer wall adjacent to the entryways.
PNG
media_image3.png
318
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Geens in view of Pg-pub ’463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet do not teach a gap in the outer wall adjacent to the entryways and extending continuously along a width of the gap from one end of the outer wall to another end of the outer wall parallel to the second axis.
Gutierrez teaches a fiber tray having outer wall (152, 154, and wall portion adjacent to tab 138) adjacent to entryways (144, 146) and extending continuously along a width of the gap from one end of the outer wall to another end of the outer wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the continuous entryway between the outer wall and the gap is for easy fiber insertion into the tray without bending the fibers and prevent bending loss.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Geens in view of Pg-pub ’463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet in further view of Gutierrez do not teach second ratio of the gap width to a maximum width of the surface parallel to the second axis is at least 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, or 0.8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimal ratio between the gap width to a maximum width of the tray base to determine the maximum number of fibers the gap can support while the tray interior volume would allow the number of fibers with an acceptable bend radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claims 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ray (US 2023/0244052 A1, herein “Ray”).
Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach the invention of claim 11, but Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray do not teach receivers for receiving splice bodies of splices between fibers of two pairs of rollable fiber ribbons.
Ray teaches a fiber optic splice holder (Fig. 6: 100) for holding spliced rollable ribbon fiber (Para [0045]). Ray teaches the storage assembly having the capability to hold spliced rollable ribbon fibers allows for storing large groups of fiber cable and the amount of time required to store splices is reduced by orders of magnitude in comparison to conventional storage solutions (Para [0022]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the splice holder in Ray’s inventions for holding spliced rollable ribbon fiber would be modifiable to the splice holder (44) as taught in Geens’ fiber tray. One motivation would be to reduce the amount of time to store splices by employing rollable ribbon fiber.
Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet and in further view of Ray do not explicitly teach the fiber management region includes exactly two receivers for receiving splice bodies of splices between fibers of two pairs of rollable fiber ribbons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the number of splice receivers for the receiving splice bodies of splices to accommodate for the size of the fiber tray and the number of fibers in which the fiber tray can accommodate (e.g., reduce the number of splice receivers for a small fiber management tray), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claims 16 and 21. Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach the invention of claim 1 and claim 18, but Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet do not teach a rollable fiber ribbon routed in the interior volume on the fiber management surface.
Ray teaches a fiber optic splice holder (Fig. 6: 100) for holding spliced rollable ribbon fiber (Para [0045]). Ray teaches the storage assembly having the capability to hold spliced rollable ribbon fibers allows for storing large groups of fiber cable and the amount of time required to store splices is reduced by orders of magnitude in comparison to conventional storage solutions (Para [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the splice holder in Ray’s inventions for holding spliced rollable ribbon fiber would be modifiable to the splice holder (44) as taught in Geens’ fiber tray. One motivation would be to reduce the amount of time to store splices by employing rollable ribbon fiber.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray and Ray as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Fiber-Mart.com (Let the Ribbon Cables Roll, 2017).
Regarding claim 17, Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray and Ray teach claim 16 and claim 21, but do not teach the rollable fiber ribbon includes 12 optical fibers.
Fiber-Mart teaches OFS form each ribbons with twelve 250-micron fibers partially bonded to each other at intermittent points to create very flexible ribbon (5th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize this is well-known data available to one having ordinary skill in the art of optical fiber ribbons such as from Fiber-Mart.com, a fiber vendor. One motivation for using rollable fiber ribbon for its high density and flexibility.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pimentel et al. (US 2013/0243386 A1, herein “Pimentel”).
Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet teach the invention of claim 18, but Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet do not teach the tray further comprising a cover pivotally connected to the body of the distribution tray for selectively covering the fiber management trays.
Pimentel teaches fiber distribution tray (Fig. 9A: distribution box 400) for mounting plurality of fiber management trays (splice trays 175a-175e as shown in Fig. 2B) within the interior volume. The distribution tray comprises a cover (at 400a) pivotally connected to the body of the distribution tray for selectively covering the fiber management trays.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize a cover for the distribution tray is common practice in fiber distribution hub, box, or rack. One motivation would be to protect the interior of the distribution tray from moisture, dirt, and debris.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463” and Gutierrez.
Regarding claims 24-27, Geens discloses a fiber management tray for managing optical fibers comprising:
a tray body (main body 102) extending from the front end of the tray to the back end of the tray a long a first axis (see annotated Fig. 1), the tray extending from a left end of the tray to the right end of the tray along a second axis, the tray extending from the top end of the tray to a bottom end of the tray along a third axis, the first axis, the second axis and the third axis being mutually perpendicular, the tray body including:
couplers (snap-in pivot devices 126, and hinge members 124) at the back end of the tray for pivotally coupling the fiber management tray to a tray mounting plate or other type of housing/enclosure (Para [0053]); and
a tray interior volume defined by:
a fiber management surface (base 104); and
an outer wall (fiber containment wall 106) projecting from the fiber management surface (104) parallel to the third axis to define a depth of the interior, the depth extending parallel to the third axis from a top end of the wall to the surface;
wherein the tray body defines opposing entryways (first end 116 and second end 118) by which the optical fibers can enter the tray interior volume (see Fig. 22, Paras [0050]-[0051]);
wherein the outer wall (106) defines a gap in the outer wall adjacent to the entryways.
However, Geens do not explicitly disclose the fiber management trays are coupled to a slidable distribution tray.
Pg-pub ‘463 teaches an optical fiber distribution system (Fig. 1: 12) and the distribution system may include pull-out drawers (Para [0017]). Thus, the examiner considers the pull-out drawer is a slidable enclosure for mounting fiber management trays.
However, Geens in view of Pg-pub ’463 do not teach a gap in the outer wall adjacent to the entryways and extending continuously along a width of the gap from one end of the outer wall to another end of the outer wall parallel to the second axis.
Gutierrez teaches a fiber tray having outer wall (152, 154, and wall portion adjacent to tab 138) adjacent to entryways (144, 146) and extending continuously along a width of the gap from one end of the outer wall to another end of the outer wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the continuous entryway between the outer wall and the gap is for easy fiber insertion into the tray without bending the fibers and prevent bending loss. One motivation is to provide an entryway that is proportional to the interior volume of the tray for supporting the optical fibers with at the bending radius tolerance.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Geens in view of Pg-pub ’463 and PPC Fiber Splice Tray datasheet in further view of Gutierrez do not teach second ratio of the gap width to a maximum width of the surface parallel to the second axis is at least 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, or 0.8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimal ratio between the gap width to a maximum width of the tray base to determine the maximum number of fibers the gap can support while the tray interior volume would allow the number of fibers with an acceptable bend radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘462 and Ray.
Regarding claim 28, Geens discloses a fiber management tray for managing optical fibers comprising:
a tray body (main body 102) extending from the front end of the tray to the back end of the tray a long a first axis (see annotated Fig. 1), the tray extending from a left end of the tray to the right end of the tray along a second axis, the tray extending from the top end of the tray to a bottom end of the tray along a third axis, the first axis, the second axis and the third axis being mutually perpendicular, the tray body including:
couplers (snap-in pivot devices 126, and hinge members 124) at the back end of the tray for pivotally coupling the fiber management tray to a tray mounting plate or other type of housing/enclosure (Para [0053]); and
a tray interior volume defined by:
a fiber management surface (base 104); and
an outer wall (fiber containment wall 106) projecting from the fiber management surface (104) parallel to the third axis to define a depth of the interior, the depth extending parallel to the third axis from a top end of the wall to the surface.
Geens further discloses the fiber management region (128, 230, 132) includes other walls in addition to the outer wall that define receivers for receiving splice bodies of splices between optical fibers (Geens Para [0056] teach Pg-pub 2014/0321825 incorporated by reference in Fig. 11 shows fiber management region includes other walls (at splice holder 44) in addition to the outer wall that define receivers for receiving splice bodies of splices between optical fibers.
However, Geens do not explicitly disclose the fiber management trays are coupled to a slidable distribution tray.
Pg-pub ‘463 teaches an optical fiber distribution system (Fig. 1: 12) and the distribution system may include pull-out drawers (Para [0017]). Thus, the examiner considers the pull-out drawer is a slidable enclosure or distribution tray for mounting fiber management trays.
Geens in view of Pg-pub ‘463 do not teach receivers for receiving splice bodies of splices between fibers of two pairs of rollable fiber ribbons.
Ray teaches a fiber optic splice holder (Fig. 6: 100) for holding spliced rollable ribbon fiber (Para [0045]). Ray teaches the storage assembly having the capability to hold spliced rollable ribbon fibers allows for storing large groups of fiber cable and the amount of time required to store splices is reduced by orders of magnitude in comparison to conventional storage solutions (Para [0022]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the splice holder in Ray’s inventions for holding spliced rollable ribbon fiber would be modifiable to the splice holder (44) as taught in Geens’ fiber tray. One motivation would be to reduce the amount of time to store splices by employing rollable ribbon fiber.
Regarding the limitation—a ratio of a maximum dimensions of each of the other walls to a maximum width of the surface parallel to the second axis is less than 0.7, 0.5, and 0.3—is rejected above under 112 for lack of clarity. As noted, the maximum dimensions other walls includes width, length, and thickness such that the examiner is unable to determine which dimension contributes to the ratio. For this reason, the examiner is unable to search or determine patentability of the “ratio” limitation of claim 28 and claims 29-30.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892:F-G. Van Cauteren et al. teach high density cable management closure for implementation at distribution points. Geens et al. teach telecommunications tray assembly with fiber organizing trays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 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, Thomas A. Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights