DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on October 29, 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending, with claims 1 and 13 in independent form.
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 November 6, 2025, and October 29, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (thirteen (13) pages) were received on October 29, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding independent claim 1, the term “the cabinet” (two instances) should read “the telecommunications cabinet” for consistency. Also noting claim 1, the phrase “such as between the input and output cables and the equipment” should be reviewed as this phrase is the first time any of these claim features are defined (note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below). Regarding dependent claims 2 and 3, the term “the access panel” should read “the movable front access panel” for consistency. Regarding claim 4, the feature “mounting equipment locations” (two instances) should read “the mounting equipment locations” for consistency with the claim 1 definition of such term (note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below). Also regarding claim 4, the term “the cabinet” should read “the telecommunications cabinet” for consistency. Regarding claim 5, the term “the front access panel” should read “the movable front access panel” for consistency. Regarding claim 9, the term “the cabinet” should read “the telecommunications cabinet” for consistency. Also regarding claim 9, the term “telecommunications equipment” should read reviewed as this feature may conflict with “the equipment” in claim 1 (note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below). Regarding independent method claim 13, the phrase “cabinet including in an interior” is awkward and should be re-drafted as “cabinet including an interior.” Also regarding claim 13, the terms “a rear portion” / “the rear space” (two instances) should be reviewed as these terms are not consistent (note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below). Also regarding claim 13 the term “the cabinet” should read “the telecommunications cabinet” for consistency. Also regarding claim 13 the term “the telecommunications equipment” / “the equipment” should be reviewed as these terms are not consistent (note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below). 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 1 and 13 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. Claims 2-12 and 14-15 are also rejected herein at least as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the phrased limitation "such as between the input and output cables and the equipment" in the claim body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Neither “input and output cables” or “equipment” have been defined in the claim prior to this (“the”) recitation. Therefore, it is not clear which “input / output” cables are being referred thereto, or which “equipment” is being referred thereto. Merely having “additional cables” does not clarify the claim. Also, different types of “equipment” are later defined in dependent claims, which provides additional lack of proper antecedent basis (see following). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found vague and indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a rear portion” and then “the rear space” (two instances) in the claim body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the rear “portion” the same/different from the rear “space”? These claims terms are not the same and may have different terminologies / meanings. Additionally, claim 13 recites “telecommunications equipment” and then “the equipment”, which are potentially not the same terms. For these combined reasons, independent claim 13 is found vague and indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally, regarding Dependent claims: regarding claim 4, the feature “wherein equipment mounting locations” (two instances) lacks proper antecedent basis, because it is unclear if this is the term from claim 1 (“equipment mounting locations” found in claim 1) or if this is a new structural term. Regarding claim 9, the term “telecommunications equipment” lacks proper antecedent basis, because it is unclear if this is the term from claim 1 (“equipment” found in claim 1) or if this is a new term.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedor et al. US 2022/0082775 A1, and further in view of Siebel US 2022/0329088 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, and inherent method of using same in claim 13, Sedor et al. US 2022/0082775 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 2, 7, 49-54; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0075] – [0134]; Claims) a telecommunications cabinet (cited Figs.; Entire document) comprising: a housing defining an interior, the housing including a front, a rear, a top, a bottom, a right side, and a left side (Fig. 2; see para [0076]); the front including an open front portion (Fig. 2; para [0076]); an access door 40 / 50 / 60 for selectively accessing the interior of the cabinet through the open front portion (as in Fig. 2; para [0076]); equipment mounting locations positioned in the cabinet at least on one side of the cabinet (mounting / racks shown in Fig. 2 at 120 / 130 which are capable of mounting telecom equipment; para [0075]); a cable management panel 131 with cable management devices 140 on a front of the cable management panel (panel for managing spools; see Fig. 53; para [0132]); wherein a rear space exists and is found behind the cable management panel which is capable of routing of additional cables, such as between an input and output cable which can be routed and the mounted equipment (any negative space or access behind structures of the cabinet). Note that at least “rear space” (space / negative space) can be found in Sedor paras [0130] – [0134] and Figs. 51-54, in that a rear-side trunk passage created by a rear trough 810 for routing cables (either input/output capable) from an enclosure and with a pass through feature for the cable(s) near the bottom base 136.
Regarding independent claim 1, and method claim 13, Sedor US ‘775 does not teach a single combined embodiment which includes a movable front access panel for gaining access to the “rear space” behind the cable management panel without removing the cable management panel. Sedor US ‘775 therefore does not expressly teach that a “selected item of telecommunications equipment” is removed / removable while still being connected to the rear cabling.
However, such a feature, in which a “movable front access panel” can be used to access “rear space” in a similar storage / cabinet system is taught by Siebel US 2022/0329088 A1. Siebel US ‘088 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0049] – [0054]; Claims) a master unit 10 and housing 30 which is rectangular in shape, and in that a movable front access panel 42 is shown (can be accessed from the “front”, see Fig. 1) in that such panel is provided for gaining access to a “rear space” behind storage features in the overall housing, so that such access to the rear space can occur without removing other features in the housing. Also, removed selected items (in a method of using) of telecommunications equipment is an obvious use from Sedor/Siebel, as the access panel for the rear space can be used without affecting the equipment being organized by a management panel. The advantages of such feature(s) are that a technician need not remove other management portions of the housing and can access rear space without disassembling features.
Since Sedor and Siebel are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Siebel would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Sedor.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Siebel, in which there is a movable / removable front access panel (as in Figs. 2a-2b shown in Fig. 1), in order to gain access to a rear space within the back portion of the cabinet of Sedor, without removing the main cable management panel (such as in Sedor), for the purpose and motivation of allowing a technician this access to rear spacing of an interior of the cabinet without spending time/effort/re-attachment of key management panels/structures. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having a movable front-access based panel to access the rear spacing of Sedor based on Siebel’s teaching(s). The methods found in claim 13 are also obvious for similar reasons, as the front access panel usage does not affect the cabling or the management panel (selected items may easily and effectively be removed during cable connection; via the front access of Siebel). See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1, and inherent method of using same independent claim 13, are both found obvious over Sedor US ‘775 and further in view of Siebel US ‘088 (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the equipment mounting can be formed on both side of the primary reference in the cabinet of Sedor. Therefore this claim is also obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding claim 5, the attachable / detachable feature of the front access panel (Figs. 2a and 2b) of Siebel makes obvious the combined features in COMBO. KSR.
Regarding claim 7, because Sedor can use spools to wrap / wind fibers and/or cables, such spool features (for cable “management”) would have been obvious design choices for a single combination in COMBO. KSR.
Regarding claim 9, because the equipment can be mounted to the housing / cabinet in either reference, such a feature would have been obvious to in the combination of COMBO because mounting is required and preferred. KSR.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 15, the hypothetical COMBO features of independent claim 1 must be considered. Further, and although the exact specifics of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 15 are not found in a single embodiment from Sedor and/or Siebel, such further dependent features would have been obvious for the following reasons. At a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as locations of the panel (upper; claim 2), using fasteners to connect the access panel (claim 3), using trays for mounting (claim 6), a column of radius limiting fingers (claim 8), using optical splitters and “connection” modules (claims 10 and 14), using connection modules and “storage” (claims 11 and 15), and using connector storage modules (claim 12), because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected COMBO to perform equally well with such features as the storage / management of optical cabling and optical functional features, because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to as a means for housing / connecting / using an overall telecommunications cabinet in the high speed optical data transfer art. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a telecommunications cabinet such as COMBO, one which uses a movable / removable front access panel (for the rear space). Further, the base structure of the independent device claim 1 is made obvious over COMBO, with Sedor and Siebel. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) COMBO to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 15. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Additionally, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the Written Opinion of PCT US ‘433 in that presented claims 1-15 would be obvious for similar reasons.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B (Solheid US ‘237) and C (Caveney US ‘969), which pertain to the state of the art of telecommunications cabinets / housings that store optical cable features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 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, 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 October 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights