US 4657140

I'll search for authoritative records on US 4657140, including any CAFC 2026 litigation activity.

US 4,657,140 — Summary

Confidence: High for bibliographic data and claims (verified against the full patent text supplied for this matter, plus Google Patents, Espacenet, RPX Insight, and the issued-PDF front page). No CAFC 2026 docket activity found — see the litigation note at the end.

Bibliographic data

Inventor/assignment note (flagging, not auto-correcting): the recorded assignment dated April 17, 1986 lists assignors Zagar and Ross only (Reel/Frame 004539/0215, signing dates Nov. 13–18, 1985); Billy C. Lowry is not named in that assignment record but is named as an inventor on the patent and in Google Patents/Espacenet. I have no authoritative document explaining the omission.

Cited prior art (7 references): US 4,165,876 (Pasqualini); US 4,193,563 (Vitale); US 4,190,214 (Dayco); US 4,403,753 (Gibas); US 4,387,863 (Edmonston, Western Electric); US 4,453,635 (ITT); US 4,451,013 (Siecor). The Edmonston '863 spool is the reference the specification expressly distinguishes.

Abstract (as issued)

"A fiber optic cable storage device 10 for securing fiber optic cable 36 with connectors 34, 35 on a spool 12. The spool 12 includes a drum 13 with a flange 16 and slot 15 that allows for stress free routing of cable 36 and connectors 34, 35 to a connector storage area 18. The connector storage area includes a drive plate 20 for mechanically reeling of the cable and connector holders 29, 30 for holding fiber optic cable connectors 34, 35. A removable cover 42 is used to trap the cable connectors 34, 35 in the holders 29, 30."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — The broad apparatus claim, with four elements:

• (a) Storage spool: a cylindrical drum with a flange at each end, where one flange has a slot so the fiber cable can be passed through the flange to the drum.
• (b) Drive plate: a plate mounted centrally at one end of the drum with a center hole for attachment to a reeling device (i.e., so the spool can be mechanically wound/paid out).
• (c) Connector holder: at least one holder mounted on an end of the drum to receive a connectorized end of the cable.
• (d) End cover (means for attachment): a cover that, when attached, traps the connectorized end in the holder and, together with the holder, protects the connector end from damage.

Prosecution/claim-construction note: element (d) is drafted in means-plus-function form ("means for attachment… comprising an end cover"), so a court or the PTAB would likely construe it under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, tied to the corresponding structure in the specification (cover 42, keys 44A/44B, keyholes 46, locks 48, foam cushions 48, ejector springs 50, rivets 52).

Claim 7 — A second independent claim that is a narrower/different combination: it repeats the spool-with-slotted-flange limitation (a), the at-least-one connector holder on an end of the drum (b), and the trapping/protective end-cover means (c), but omits the drive plate and its center hole entirely. So its scope is the spool + holder + protective end cover, without requiring mechanized-reeling capability. Claim 1 and claim 7 are thus separate points of novelty, not merely claim 1 restated.

Dependent claims (brief)

• 2 — Two connector holders on one end of the drum.
• 3 — The end cover fixedly attaches to the connector holders (fastening structure rather than a loose lid).
• 4 — Adds an open-ended cylindrical spool cover surrounding the drum (the outer clamshell 54 with flanges 56 and hinges 58/removable pivot 60).
• 5 — The end cover includes foam pads to trap and cushion the connectorized ends (vibration protection).
• 6 — The slot runs from the outer edge of the drum to the outermost portion of the flange and has semi-annular notches at its innermost and outermost extremities (the bend/kink-control feature, notches 38 and 40).

Litigation / CAFC 2026 check

• I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket, appeal, IPR, or district-court activity involving US 4,657,140. Targeted searches for the number returned only patent-office and technical/citation databases (Google Patents, Espacenet, RPX Insight, Justia, patenthub), not any court docket. Search results for a "CAFC 2026 docket" for this number came back empty.
• Independent of the search result, this outcome is expected on the facts: the patent lapsed April 14, 1999 for non-payment of maintenance fees and its anticipated expiration was December 18, 2005, so it has been unenforceable for over two decades and cannot be the subject of a live 2026 infringement appeal. Its only current relevance is as prior art — notably, it is cited on the face of later fiber-spool/enclosure patents (e.g., the ADC/CommScope "fiber optic enclosure" family, US 7,715,679; US 9,057,860; US 10,495,836; and many related Commscope publications) and was relied on as an X-reference in the EPO prosecution of EP 0 534 677 A1 (AT&T, "Protected optical fiber package").
• Uncertainty statement: I cannot query PACER, the CAFC docket system, or USPTO Patent Center directly through the tools available here, and a null web-search result is not proof of absence of litigation. If you need a definitive "no litigation" confirmation, it should be verified against PACER/CAFC docket databases and the USPTO assignment/Patent Center record.

Identifier-handling note: the number was treated literally as 4657140 throughout; US 4,657,140 is the same number in comma-delimited patent format, not a separate or corrected identifier. No other patent numbers (e.g., the cited US 4,387,863 or US 4,451,013) were substituted for it.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 4657140.

Let me try more targeted litigation searches.

Let me run a few final checks on litigation-specific sources.

Litigation Search Results for U.S. Patent No. 4,657,140

Bottom line

No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 4,657,140. My searches of litigation-oriented sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener, Justia, PACER-adjacent docket references, and general web) returned no case in which US 4,657,140 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise placed at issue. What surfaced instead were unrelated appearances of the digit string "4657140" (e.g., a CourtListener financial-disclosure investment ID, a Brazilian corporate registry entry, a UK probate notice, and gene-sequence coordinate offsets in patent sequence listings), none of which involve this patent.

What I was able to confirm about the patent itself

• Patent: US 4,657,140 A — "Fiber optic cable storage device"
• Application: US 06/810,432; filed 1985‑12‑18; granted 1987‑04‑14
• Inventors: Gregory J. Zagar, Thomas A. Ross, Billy C. Lowry
• Assignee: United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force (assignment recorded 1986‑04‑17; Reel/Frame 004539/0215; signing dates 1985‑11‑13 to 1985‑11‑18)
• Claims: 7 (claim 1 is the principal independent claim; claim 7 is a second independent claim omitting the drive plate)
• Legal status: Lapsed/expired for failure to pay maintenance fees. The record shows maintenance-fee reminders in 1998, a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees on 1999‑04‑11, and expiration effective 1999‑04‑14 (Google Patents also notes an anticipated-expiration date of 2005‑12‑18, which reflects the 20-year-from-filing term rather than the actual lapse).

Why no litigation is plausible

Three structural facts make litigation on this patent very unlikely, and none of my searches contradict that:

1. Government ownership. The patent carries the standard government-interest statement ("manufactured and used by or for the Government... without the payment of any royalty"). A U.S. Government-owned patent is generally not enforced through private infringement suits in the ordinary commercial sense, and the Government's remedy for unauthorized use is under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 in the Court of Federal Claims — not a district-court infringement action.
2. Early lapse. The patent lapsed in April 1999, roughly twelve years after grant, giving a short window in which any assertion could have occurred.
3. Narrow, specialized subject matter. The claims are directed to a spool with a slotted flange, connector holders, a drive plate, and a trapping end cover — a niche packaging/handling article.

Caveats on methodology (stated so you can rely on this appropriately)

• I was cut off before completing every planned query, so I could not independently paginate the full Unified Patents case list or run a fresh PACER/Docket Navigator query. My conclusion rests on the searches actually executed, plus the patent's own prosecution/legal-status record.
• Absence of litigation in free sources is not conclusive proof that none existed. Older (pre‑2000) district-court cases are sparsely indexed in free databases, and a § 1498 Court of Federal Claims action would not appear in the same sources as ordinary infringement suits. A definitive negative would require a paid Docket Navigator / Lex Machina (or equivalent full-historical PACER) search and, for government-use claims, a check of Court of Federal Claims dockets.
• Per your instruction, I have treated "4657140" literally and did not return results for similar or differently formatted numbers.

The closest "case-adjacent" items I found (for completeness, not litigation against this patent)

• US 4,387,863 (Edmonston, Western Electric) — cited in the specification as prior art and appearing in the "Citations" list; not a litigation matter.
• The many "Cited By" documents (e.g., ADC/CommScope fiber-enclosure spools, Amphenol, Weatherford) are citations in later patents, not lawsuits.

If you want, I can attempt a follow-up run scoped specifically to Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or the Court of Federal Claims once the search steps reset — but based on everything available, the answer is that no litigation involving US 4,657,140 is known.

I'll verify the absence of AIA trial activity with a couple of targeted searches before finalizing.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 4,657,140 — 0 active, 0 instituted, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials — so the bottom line for a defendant is not "hardened patent" but rather no proceeding exists to lean on because none was ever needed: the patent is a 1985-filed U.S. Air Force utility patent that lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 1999-04-14 and is recorded as Expired – Fee Related, meaning any infringement theory directed at the claims today is facially time-barred rather than merely PTAB-vulnerable.

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is canonical here and returns no AIA trials. I separately searched for PTAB/IPR/PGR/CBM activity, Federal Circuit activity, and district court litigation naming the patent, and surfaced none (searches run 2026-09-29: patent-number + IPR/PTAB; "4,657,140" + litigation/IPR; PTAB E2E / PTAB API references). No proceedings to enumerate — I am not going to invent docket numbers to fill the template.

No proceedings to report

Source of record: USPTO Open Data Portal structured block supplied with this task; corroborated against Google Patents legal-events history for US 4,657,140 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4657140/en). PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions is the proper venue to re-confirm: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and the PTAB API described at http://www.opendatanetwork.com/dataset/uspto.data.commerce.gov/nfzn-tgjt. CourtListener returned no appellate opinion citing this patent as the subject of an FWD: https://www.courtlistener.com/.

Strategic summary

Claim status — all 7 claims UNTESTED by any tribunal, and all 7 are long dead by expiration. Claims 1 and 7 (the two independents; claim 1 recites the spool + drive plate + connector holder + end-cover combination, and claim 7 is the same combination minus the drive plate) and dependent claims 2–6 were never canceled, never confirmed, and never construed by the Board, because no petition was ever filed. The reason is structural, not strategic: AIA trials (IPR/PGR) only exist for petitions filed on or after 2012-09-16, and CBM review equally post-dates this patent's life. Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(c) an IPR may be filed on an expired patent, so the theoretical door was open — but with the patent lapsed since 1999-04-14 and its anticipated expiration recorded as 2005-12-18, there was no commercial defendant with a reason to pay the fees. For a defendant today, the § 315(e)(2) estoppel question is moot: no petitioner, no privity, no estoppel, and every prior-art ground remains freely available if anyone ever tried to assert these claims.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no petitioner and no institution, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty — nothing is barred. If you are defending an assertion of US 4,657,140, you are not limited to the 7 references the examiner considered (US 4,165,876 Pasqualini; US 4,190,214 Dayco; US 4,193,563 Vitale; US 4,387,863 Edmonston; US 4,403,753 Gibas; US 4,451,013 Siecor; US 4,453,635 ITT). All of that art plus anything else is available under §§ 102/103 in district court, under §§ 102/103/112 in an IPR/PGR, and the patent's own specification concedes Edmonston (US 4,387,863) as the starting point — meaning the "novelty" is essentially the drive plate with a center-hole reeling receptacle, the offset connector holders, and the semi-annular notches at the slot extremities (claim 6). That concession is a ready-made § 103 motivation-to-combine argument. Note also the record's own legal-events history: this is a government-owned patent (Air Force), not an NPE asset, so there is no serial-assertion or defensive-aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) story here at all — there is no chain to trace because there is no campaign.

Pattern signals. None. No repeat-petitioner pattern (no petitioner), no PTAB-appeal aggressiveness by the patent owner (no FWD, so no appeal window under § 142/§ 319 and no Rule 36 or precedential opinion to cite), and no defensive aggregator participation. The patent instead shows a classic quiet-death profile: maintenance fee reminder 1993-10-31, fee paid 1994-09-14 (8-year fee), reminder 1998-11-03, lapse 1999-04-11, failure-to-pay lapse confirmed effective 1999-04-14, and a final status stamp 2018-01-30 ("PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362"). Its only lasting footprint is as a cited prior-art reference in later unrelated cases (e.g., US 10,495,836 and US 9,494,757 list "4657140 | April 14, 1987 | Zagar et al." among their references), which is itself a defensive gift — the specification has been cited against others, so its disclosure is well-mapped.

Recommended next steps

• Do not build a PTAB defense. There is nothing to build on and nothing to attack: no AIA trial was ever instituted, so there is no FWD to link, no claim to quote, and no disposition to cite. Confirming that in one click is enough: run the patent number through PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/), both of which return empty for this patent as of 2026-09-29.
• The real defense is expiration, not invalidity. If a demand letter cites US 4,657,140, the threshold response is that the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 1999-04-14 and is recorded as Expired – Fee Related, with anticipated expiration 2005-12-18. Under § 286 there is a 6-year damages lookback, so even in the most aggressive framing any recoverable past-infringement window closed roughly two decades before 2026-09-29. Demand that the sender identify (a) the maintenance-fee payment that allegedly revived the term, and (b) the pre-1999 acts of infringement — a letter that assumes the patent is live is either negligent or in bad faith.
• If you need an invalidity position anyway (e.g., for a DJ action or a licensing posture), you are unconstrained. No estoppel attaches. Lead with Edmonston (US 4,387,863), which the patent's own specification distinguishes, plus US 4,451,013 (Siecor) and US 4,453,635 (ITT) on spool/coil storage, and target independent claim 7 first — it is claim 1 with the drive-plate limitation removed, which makes it the broadest and weakest claim. Claim 6's semi-annular notch limitation and claim 5's foam pads are the narrowest points and the ones most likely to require extra art.
• No trial-stage milestones to track. There is no pending proceeding, so there is no institution deadline, no statutory 1-year FWD clock under § 316(a)(11), no oral hearing, and no appeal. Any future IPR petition would need to clear the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of a complaint — which, given the patent's expired status, is unlikely to ever arise.

Confidence and limits. High confidence that no AIA trial proceeding exists: the structured ODP block is canonical and my independent searches corroborated it. I did not locate any district court litigation, ex parte reexamination, or Federal Circuit opinion concerning this patent, but I cannot rule out a pre-2012 action that is not indexed in the sources searched — I have not asserted one exists, and nothing in the record suggests it does. All dates above are taken verbatim from the Google Patents legal-events history for US 4,657,140.

I'll verify the assignment record and cross-reference before building the timeline.

Ownership Analysis — US 4657140 (Fiber Optic Cable Storage Device)

Verified against the Google Patents legal-events record and cross-checked by live search. The USPTO Assignment Center shows exactly one recorded assignment for this patent — the original pre-issuance assignment to the U.S. Government. There is no post-issuance chain.

Inventors

All three were presumptively employees of the U.S. Air Force at the time of filing (the application was filed 1985-12-18 and the "STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST" plus the assignment to the Secretary of the Air Force both indicate government-employee inventors working on a government-funded effort; the specific duty station is not stated in the patent text and I cannot confirm it from the record).

Anomaly worth flagging (not an NPE signal): the patent names three joint inventors but the recorded assignment lists only Zagar and Ross. Lowry does not appear as an assignor. This is common where one joint inventor's rights vest in the Government by operation of law or by a separate instrument that is not reflected in the reel/frame legend; it is a completeness gap in the record, not evidence of a transfer. There is no evidence of inventor departures within 12 months of filing or of any subsequent portfolio sale — nothing in the record shows any activity after 1999.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force (also styled "United States Department of the Air Force").
• Product embodying the claims: The device is a fiber-optic cable storage/transport spool with a slotted flange, connector cradles, a foam-cushioned end cover, an optional full spool cover, and a drive-plate receptacle for mechanized reeling (claims 1–7). The specification describes modifying a "conventional spool," i.e., the invention is a storage accessory rather than a fielded commercial product. No evidence was found of the Government commercializing or licensing it.
• Primary line of business: Federal military/defense R&D — not a commercial vendor.
• Current status: U.S. federal agency; operating. The patent is not operating: it lapsed for non-payment of the 11.5-year maintenance fee, effective 1999-04-14, and is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related." (The "Anticipated expiration 2005-12-18" line is a computed 20-years-from-filing date that the patent never reached.)

Assignment timeline

One record only:

• 1985-11-13 → 1985-11-18 (executed; earliest/latest signing dates) / recorded 1986-04-17 — Reel 004539/0215
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Zagar, Gregory J.; Ross, Thomas A.
  • Assignee: United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force
  • Correspondent: Not surfaced in the available record. The reel/frame legend carries no named attorney, firm, or address, and Google Patents exposes no correspondent field for this entry. Because government assignments of this vintage were typically recorded through the agency's own patent/procurement counsel, I will not name a correspondent or firm — doing so would be fabrication. No recurring correspondent exists to flag, since this is the only link.
  • Context: Original assignment of government-employee invention rights to the United States (pre-issuance). Not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Nothing further. No change of name, no security agreement, no merger, no release, no correction. The only later legal events are maintenance-fee events: FPAY year 4 (recorded 1991-01-23), FPAY year 8 (1994-09-14), REMI reminder (1998-11-03), LAPS lapse for failure to pay (1999-04-11), FP final lapse effective 1999-04-14.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4657140
    1985 : Invented by Zagar Ross and Lowry
         : Rights assigned to US Air Force
    1986 : Assignment recorded at reel 004539 frame 0215
    1987 : Patent issued to US Air Force
    1994 : Eighth year maintenance fee paid
    1999 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fee

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment after reel 004539/0215 (1986-04-17). The sole assignee is a federal agency, not an "IP/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" vehicle, and no single-purpose LLC appears anywhere in the record.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original assignee nor any successor matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. No Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff record surfaced for US 4657140.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (and unverifiable). Only one assignment exists, and its correspondent is not exposed in the record. There is no recurrence to test, so this signal cannot be established either way.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive transfers; no chained LLCs; no shared-address assignees.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was found, and the patent lapsed in 1999; there is no litigation to precede.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving the assignee. The patent's termination was a routine maintenance-fee lapse (LAPS 1999-04-11; FP effective 1999-04-14), not a sale in bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. No operating company transferred rights to an NPE; the Government neither sold nor asserted. No SEC 10-K/8-K disclosure exists because the owner is not a public company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The non-assertion posture here comes from U.S. Government ownership combined with a 1999 lapse, which is a different mechanism — the patent is simply dead, not neutralized by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment is recorded).

Justification: the Assignment Center record contains a single entry — reel 004539/0215, executed 1985-11-13/1985-11-18 and recorded 1986-04-17, conveying rights from Zagar and Ross to the Secretary of the Air Force. There are no post-issuance assignments to analyze, and every NPE-pattern signal above is "not present" on the strength of that absence plus the identity of the owner. The patent lapsed for unpaid maintenance fees effective 1999-04-14 and never passed to any private party, so no assertion, licensing program, or shell-entity transfer was ever possible. This is a government-owned, long-dead patent — the "insufficient data" label reflects the rubric (no records beyond the original assignment), not any unresolved suspicion of NPE activity.

Verification:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 4657140)
• USPTO legacy assignment index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4657140A](/patent/US4657140A)/en

Caveat: I could not retrieve a named correspondent for reel 004539/0215 from the sources available; that field is genuinely blank in the indexed record. I have left it as "not surfaced" rather than guess, since the correspondent is the identifier you most need and an invented name would be worse than a gap.

I'll research this systematically, starting with the target patent and then examining each cited reference.

Now let me examine the remaining cited references individually.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 4,657,140 ("Fiber optic cable storage device")

Scope and method

US4657140 (Appl. US06/810,432; filed 1985‑12‑18; granted 1987‑04‑14; inventors Zagar, Ross, Lowry; assignee U.S. Air Force) lists seven patent citations on its face. I retrieved the target patent's full text and citation list and pulled the full text/abstract of the key references. Note on identifiers, per your strict rule: the patent's Background cites "U.S. Pat. No. 4,387,863 to Edmonston et al." The face-of-patent citation list gives that same number as US4387863A (Western Electric, "Spool assembly"). The digits are identical, so this is a match, not a correction — the reference the specification disparages is US4387863A.

Bottom line up front: None of the seven cited references discloses all elements of any claim. There is no clean § 102 anticipation in the cited art. The reference of genuine interest is US4387863A (Edmonston et al.), which the applicant itself identifies, describes, and distinguishes in the Background — i.e., it is the primary § 103 reference, not an anticipatory one.

For reference, the claims at issue: claim 1 (independent — spool with drum + flanges, one flange slotted; drive plate with center hole for a reeling device; connector holder on a drum end; end cover trapping the connectorized end); claim 2 (two holders); claim 3 (cover fixedly attached to holders); claim 4 (open-ended cylindrical spool cover); claim 5 (foam pads); claim 6 (slot from drum outer edge to flange outermost portion with semi-annular notches at both extremities); claim 7 (independent — same as claim 1 but without the drive plate).

1. The keystone reference

US4387863A — "Spool assembly"

• Assignees/inventors: Western Electric Company, Inc.; inventor of record Frederick R. Edmonston et al. (the specification calls it "Edmonston et al.")
• Priority/filing: 1981‑12‑17 (Appl. US06/331,715); published 1983‑06‑14
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4387863A/en
• Description: A two‑piece spool of semi‑rigid expanded polystyrene for connectorized single‑fiber lightguide cable. Each flange has first and second peripheral rims separated by a region of lesser radius, forming a channel whose width is slightly less than the outer dimension of a cable connector, so the connector is wedged and gripped in the channel. A flared groove runs from the channel toward a point tangent to the hub so the cable can be routed from the connector to the hub for winding; the taper is chosen to avoid a sharp bend (microbending loss). The larger rim shields the connector when the spool rolls on its flanges.
• § 102 assessment: Does not anticipate any claim. It reads on isolated elements — a drum/hub with flanges, a cable‑passage feature through a flange (the flared groove), and restraint of a connectorized cable end. But it lacks (i) a drive plate with a central reeling‑device hole (claim 1(b)); (ii) a discrete connector holder mounted on an end of the drum (claims 1(c)/2); (iii) an end cover that traps the connectorized end and closes over it (claims 1(d)/3/5); and (iv) an open‑ended cylindrical spool cover (claim 4). Its groove is also a flared, tapered groove to a hub tangent point, not a slot with semi‑annular notches at both extremities (claim 6). Claim 7 fails for the same reasons minus the drive plate.
• Real role: Primary § 103 reference. The instant patent expressly concedes Edmonston is the closest art and distinguishes it on exactly the points above (wedging only "does not positively lock" the connectors, and the open channels "do not protect the connector ends from dirt and debris"). A § 103 obviousness case, if any, runs through Edmonston as the base reference.

2. Secondary references (structural spool / connectorized-cable storage)

US4451013A — "Telephone cable reel"

• Assignee/inventor: Siecor Corporation; Elliot P. Bedrosian
• Filing 1982‑10‑18; published 1984‑05‑29 (Appl. US06/434,836)
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4451013](/patent/US4451013) ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[4451013](/patent/4451013).html
• Description: Cable reel for "pre‑connectorized" telephone cable: two spaced flanges joined by a cylindrical cross member; inside the cross member a cable‑terminal receiving means (a container) whose opening aligns with an aperture in the cross member so the pre‑con end can be inserted and protected while the balance of cable is wound over it.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. It discloses a flange/cross‑member spool with an aperture and an internal receptacle that receives a connectorized cable end — conceptually adjacent to claim 1(c) and to the "slot to allow passage of cable therethrough." But there is no end cover that traps the connector end, no drive plate/reeling hole, no foam, and the "holder" is a buried container inside the drum rather than a holder mounted on the drum end. Best characterized as a § 103 secondary reference for the "receptacle for a connectorized end" idea.

US4453635A — "Optical fiber coil storage arrangement and a method of manufacturing the same"

• Assignee/inventors: International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.; Hans E. Heinzer, Donald L. Taylor
• Filing 1982‑08‑30 (Appl. US06/412,736); published 1984‑06‑12
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4453635](/patent/US4453635) ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[4453635](/patent/4453635).html
• Description: A rigid casing (two half‑shells, aluminum) housing a precision‑wound optical fiber coil. The coil is held coaxially by a solid annular member of semi‑rigid synthetic foam cast in place and tightly engaging the coil's outer circumference, with a barrier sheet and removable lid/mandrel; designed for inner‑peel deployment.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. Relevant to the foam element of claim 5 (and the general goal of cushioning/protecting fiber), since it uses semi‑rigid foam to immobilize and cushion an optical fiber coil. But it is a canister/enclosure for a bare coil, not a spool bearing connector holders and a connector‑trapping end cover, so it cannot read on claim 5 as a whole or on claim 1. § 103 reference on the "foam cushioning" point only.

3. Background/general-art references (no § 102 bearing)

US4165876A — "Container for a line for towing an aerial target and process for loading the line into the container"

• Inventor: Joseph Pasqualini; priority 1976‑12‑01; published 1979‑08‑28
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4165876](/patent/US4165876)
• Description: A cylindrical container/loader for a tow cable. Cable is coiled in horizontal layers over a friction piston; expanded‑polystyrene disks with notches for passage of the two cable extremities close the top, and a looped cable triangle holds the disk. Field is aerial‑target towing, not fiber optics.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. Its nearest conceptual touchpoint is a disk/closure with notches for cable passage, loosely analogous to claim 6's notched slot, and a protective disk over the wound material. But the cable is a textile towing line; there are no connector holders, no drive plate, no connector‑trapping cover. Analogous‑art value only; at most a § 103 secondary reference and arguably non‑analogous art.

US4190214A — "Package construction for coilable material and method of packaging and dispensing same"

• Assignee: Dayco Corporation; priority 1978‑11‑02; published 1980‑02‑26
• Description: A package/reel construction for coilable (non‑optical) material and its packaging/dispensing method.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation of any claim. General packaging/spool art; no fiber‑optic connector features. (Caveat: see Confidence note below — I could not retrieve full text for this reference within the search budget; description is from the face‑citation title/date.)

US4193563A — "Apparatus for carrying and dispensing cable"

• Inventor: Carmen Vitale; priority 1977‑12‑01; published 1980‑03‑18
• Description: A portable cable carrying/dispensing apparatus (reel/carrier).
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation. General cable‑handling art; discloses no connector holder, drive plate, or connector‑trapping cover. (Same retrieval caveat.)

US4403753A — "Coil spool for an electromagnetic device"

• Inventor: Christoph Gibas; priority 1980‑07‑15; published 1983‑09‑13
• Description: A coil spool/bobbin for an electromagnetic device (winding former), not for optical cable.
• § 102 assessment: No anticipation and likely non‑analogous art. Bobbin structure for electromagnetic coils; no connectorized‑cable storage features. (Same retrieval caveat.)

4. Summary table — § 102 mapping to claims of US4657140

Conclusion: Every cited reference predates the 1985‑12‑18 filing and is therefore properly § 102/§ 103 art as to US4657140. However, no single cited reference contains all elements of claim 1, 6, or 7, or their dependents, so none anticipates. The inventive contribution of US4657140 resides in the combination of (a) the slotted/notched flange slot for stress‑free cable routing, (b) a drive plate with a reeling‑device receptacle, (c) end‑mounted connector holders, and (d) a removable end cover (optionally foamed) that positively traps and seals the connectorized ends — a combination the cited art does not show. The most relevant prior art, for both interest and any obviousness attack, is US4387863A (Edmonston et al.), which the applicant itself acknowledged and distinguished.

Confidence / limitations (stated explicitly)

• High confidence: the composition of the face‑of‑patent citation list for US4657140 (7 references, with numbers, dates, assignees, and titles) and the claim texts — these come from the authoritative full text you supplied and are corroborated by the Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline pages retrieved.
• High confidence: the substance and distinguishing features of US4387863A, US4451013A, US4453635A, US4165876A, each of which I retrieved (full text/abstract).
• Lower confidence (flagged): I could not complete full‑text retrieval of US4190214A (Dayco), US4193563A (Vitale), and US4403753A (Gibas) before my retrieval budget was exhausted. My descriptions for those three rest on their face‑citation titles/dates plus general knowledge of their subject matter, so treat the "no anticipation" call on those three as reasoned but not fully text‑verified. If you need them pinned down, they warrant a direct full‑text pull.
• All statements about anticipation/obviousness are technical analyses, not legal conclusions; the patent's legal status on the record is "Expired – Fee Related."

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual cited prior art. Let me pull details on the key references from the patent's Prior Art section.

Let me pull the remaining cited references to complete the prior-art picture.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 4,657,140 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Note on scope/cross-reference: This is a technical validity analysis, distinct from the earlier litigation section. The earlier finding (no known litigation; Government-owned; lapsed 1999-04-14) does not bear on § 103 and is not revisited here. This analysis uses only the seven references listed in the Patent Citations section of the patent page you supplied, plus the specification's own admissions.

1. Framework

Under Graham v. John Deere the inquiry is (i) scope/content of the art, (ii) differences between the claims and the art, (iii) the level of ordinary skill, and (iv) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, a claim is obvious where the elements existed in the prior art and a POSITA had a reason (explicit or from design need/market pressure/common sense) to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success — including "obvious to try" and "predictable variation" rationales.

The specification itself supplies the key admissions that frame the analysis:

• It identifies U.S. 4,387,863 (Edmonston, Western Electric) as the closest known device — "An example of such a storage device is found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,387,863 to Edmonston et al." — and then states the differences it purports to improve: (a) Edmonston "only allow[s] wedging" and "does not positively lock" the connectors; and (b) the wedging "channels … do not protect the connector ends from dirt and debris that might damage the optical surfaces."
• It states the stated objects as (i) protect connectors/cable, (ii) easy stowing, (iii) inexpensive production.
  These admissions establish that all seven references are in the same field of endeavor (cable/fiber storage reels and packages) and are therefore analogous art.

2. The cited references and what each discloses

3. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent), or a skilled engineering technician, with ~2–4 years of experience designing cable/fiber spools, reels, and packaging. The person is familiar with (a) optical-fiber fragility/microbending constraints, (b) reel structures (drums, flanges, arbor/spindle holes, drive keys), and (c) packaging closures/lids and foam cushioning. All seven references are within this person's field and would have been consulted.

4. Claim-by-claim element mapping

Independent claim 1

Dependent claims

• Claim 2 (two connector holders): [E] accommodates a connector at each flange/end ("the other end of the cable … is passed through the flared groove in the opposite flange to the channel"); [S]'s reel is designed for a connectorized terminal end. Placing the two connectorized ends of one cable in two holders is a predictable arrangement (and the spec admits at least "half a loop" is all that is required).
• Claim 3 (cover fixedly attaches to the connector holders): [I]'s lid attaches to the casing; fastening a cover to the structure it closes via keys/screws is a conventional mechanical expedient. See also [E]'s molded, separable structure.
• Claim 4 (open-ended cylindrical spool cover surrounding the drum): [I] rigid casing circumferentially bounding the chamber; [P]'s container for the line; [D]'s package.
• Claim 5 (foam pads in the end cover): [I] "semi-rigid foam" annular body cushioning the coil (the patent's claims 5 and [I] both use foam as the cushioning element); [E]'s spool is expanded polystyrene, molded compressible for gripping.
• Claim 6 (slot from drum outer edge to flange outermost portion, with semi-annular notches at each extremity): [E] flared groove running from the channel to hub tangency, with the flare "chosen to produce a gentle change in direction … [to] minimize microbending" — i.e., an anti-kink/anti-sharp-bend passage from inner radius to outer flange region, the functional equivalent of the claimed notched slot.
• Claim 7 (independent; identical to claim 1 but omitting element (b)): the same combination below, without needing the drive plate. Claim 7 is therefore the broader and the more clearly obvious of the two independent claims.

5. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Ground A — [E] Edmonston + [S] Siecor + [I] ITT → claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (and 4 with [P]/[D])

1. [E] supplies the claimed spool (drum + flanged ends), the slotted/flared through-flange cable passage (claim 6), and the connector-gripping channel (claim 1(c)), and even the "larger rim protects the connector" concept.
2. [S] supplies the missing positive, discrete connector holder at the drum end and the aligned aperture/slot — it expressly "receives a pre-connectorized terminal portion" in a container, which is precisely claim 1(c)'s "connector holder … for receiving a connectorized end."
3. [I] supplies the missing end cover/lid that encloses and cushions the connector — the exact feature the specification identifies as Edmonston's deficiency ("do not protect the connector ends from dirt and debris").

Motivation to combine: The references themselves state the motivation. [E] warns connectors "must be protected … so that the ability of the connectors to align the fibers is not impaired" and that "[t]oo sharp a bend could result in permanent damage to the cable." [S] is directed to the identical problem of connectorized cable. [I] is expressly directed to protecting a fragile optical-fiber coil with a casing/lid and foam "because of its fragility, the optical fiber must be protected from impacts." A POSITA faced with Edmonston's admitted shortcoming (open, wedged channels exposed to dirt/debris, connectors free to work loose on rotation) would predictably look to the known technique of enclosing and cushioning the connectorized end under a lid, which [I] and the container art ([P], [D]) teach. The combination is a predictable use of prior-art elements each performing its known function — the KSR "familiar elements arranged according to known methods / improvement in one field using a known technique" rationale.

Ground B — [S] Siecor as primary + [E] + [I] → claims 1, 2, 6, 7

[S] alone discloses the drum + flanges + discrete connector-receiving container inside the drum + aligned aperture — arguably the strongest single anticipation of claim 1(c) and the slot concept. [E] adds the anti-microbending flared slot/groove (claim 6). [I] adds the protective lid (claim 1(d)). Same motivation as Ground A.

Ground C — [E] + [I] alone → claim 7 in particular

Because claim 7 omits the drive plate, [E] (spool + slot + connector seat) + [I] (protective enclosing lid/foam) renders claim 7 obvious on a two-reference combination; [S] is then only needed to convert the "wedge channel" of [E] into a "holder" in the literal claim-1(c) sense.

Claims 4 and 5

• Claim 4: [I]'s rigid casing (or [P]/[D]'s line/coil containers) → obvious.
• Claim 5: [I]'s semi-rigid foam annular body, plus [E]'s compressible polystyrene → obvious to place a foam pad in the cover to cushion/trap the connector, especially given the claimed function is identical to foam's known function in [I].

6. Why a POSITA would have been motivated — summarized rationales

1. Same problem, same field: all references address storing/delivering cable or fiber coils without damage; the fragility/microbending concern is standard.
2. Specification admissions identify Edmonston as the starting point and the two differences (positive holder + protective cover) as the objective; both differences are separately taught by [S] and [I].
3. Predictable combination: each added element ([S]'s container, [I]'s lid/foam) performs exactly the function it performs in its own reference; no unexpected interaction is asserted.
4. Design need / market pressure: connectorized fiber was increasingly shipped/stored (spec itself; [S] "pre-con cable"), creating a recognized need to protect optical surfaces — the very need [I] and [P]/[D] address.
5. Obvious-to-try / finite number of predictable solutions: enclosing a delicate coiled item in a casing with a removable lid and foam is a small, identified set of known packaging options.

7. Where the obviousness case is weakest (stated candidly)

• Claim 1 element (b) — the drive plate with a center hole for a reeling device — is the weakest link. I could not independently verify the detailed disclosures of the four references I could only reach by title/class — US 4,193,563 (Vitale), US 4,190,214 (Dayco), US 4,165,876 (Pasqualini), and US 4,403,753 (Gibas) — because my queries hit the tool step cap before I could pull their full texts. None of [E], [S], or [I] expressly discloses a "drive plate … with a center hole for attachment to a reeling device."
  • Consequence: the § 103 case is strong for independent claim 7 (which omits the drive plate) and strong for every dependent claim, but for claim 1 the drive plate must be supplied either by (i) the reel/mounting art ([V], [G], which I could not verify) or (ii) as a conventional reel arbor/spindle hole in the POSITA's ordinary knowledge (KSR; a center bore/keyed hub for mounting a reel on a winder is ubiquitous reel practice). If neither can be shown, claim 1 survives on that single element while claim 7 falls — a distinction worth noting because the two independent claims differ only by element (b).
• "Holder" vs. "channel." [E]'s connector "seat" is a channel formed by flange rims, not a discrete, separately mounted "holder." Ground A/B close this gap with [S]'s container/terminal-receiving means; standing alone, [E] alone does not literally disclose claim 1(c).
• Claim 3 ("fixedly attaches to the connector holders"). The verified references show a lid attached to a casing ([I]) and keys/cover flanges in the patent itself, but I did not verify a reference showing a cover fastened specifically to the connector holders; this is a conventional fastening, but the record I could confirm is thinner here.

8. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

No evidence in the record supports any: (a) no unexpected results are asserted (the benefits — protection, anti-kinking, easy stowing — are the stated objects, i.e., expected results from the known combination); (b) no commercial-success or long-felt-need evidence appears, and the government/military use and the 1999 lapse offer none; (c) no teaching-away — [E] itself wants connector protection, pointing toward the [I] cover; (d) no copying or nexus evidence. Absent such indicia, they do not rebut the prima facie case.

9. Conclusion

• Independent claim 7 is very likely obvious over Edmonston US 4,387,863 + ITT US 4,453,635, optionally with Bedrosian/Siecor US 4,451,013 to supply the discrete connector holder.
• Claims 2, 4, 5, 6 (and likely 3) are obvious over the same combinations, with [S] (two holders), [I]/[P]/[D] (surrounding cover), [I]/[E] (foam), and [E] (anti-kink flared slot) supplying the added elements.
• Independent claim 1 is obvious if the drive-plate element (b) is met by a cited reel/spool reference I could not verify, or by the POSITA's ordinary knowledge of reel arbor/spindle holes; that single element is the only material vulnerability in an otherwise strong § 103 case.

Methodology caveat: the element mappings for [E], [S], and [I] are grounded in their retrieved texts (URLs given above); the mappings for [D], [V], [P], [G] are based on their titles/classifications and could not be independently confirmed before the search step limit. A definitive claim 1 analysis would require pulling the full texts of US 4,193,563 and US 4,403,753 to test the drive-plate element.