DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 have been considered for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowers et al. (US Patent 5,103,378) in view of Eller (US Patent 6,350,130).
In re Claim 1, Stowers discloses a test box with circuit boards assembled by means of guide rails, comprising a box body 2, wherein a guide rail assembly 32, 34, a main circuit board 52, functional circuit boards 8 and an adapter 38 are arranged in the box body, the main circuit board 52 is installed on an inner side wall of the box body, the functional circuit boards 8 and the main circuit board 52 are perpendicularly in snap fit with the guide rail assembly 32, 34 and are in plug-in connection to the main circuit board by means of terminals 50, 51, and the adapter 38 is installed on the inner side wall of the box body and is in plug-in connection to the functional circuit boards by means of terminals.
Stowers does not explicitly disclose wherein the adapter comprises a circuit board. However, providing such was not new at a time just before the effective filing date. For example, Eller discloses an adapter 2290 comprising a circuit board 2291. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics at a time before the effective filing date of this application to have provided a circuit board adapter as disclosed in Eller with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Stowers. The use of a circuit board would improve the rigidity of the adapter thus making the apparatus more structurally sound and compact.
In re Claim 2, Stowers discloses wherein the guide rail assembly 32, 34 comprises an upper guide rail board and a lower guide rail board, the upper guide rail board is installed on a top surface of the box body, the lower guide rail board is installed on a bottom surface of the box body, several guide grooves are provided on the upper guide rail board and the lower guide rail board, the functional circuit boards are installed along the guide grooves, upper side edges of the functional circuit boards are inserted into the guide grooves of the upper guide rail board, and lower side edges of the functional circuit boards are inserted into the guide grooves of the lower guide rail board.
In re Claim 3, Stowers discloses wherein the upper guide rail board 32 and the lower guide rail board 34 have the same size, and the same number of guide grooves are provided on the upper guide rail board and the lower guide rail board. See, for example, Stowers Figures 4 and 6.
In re Claim 4, Stowers discloses the limitations as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the guide rail boards are installed with screws. However, the office takes official notice that using screws to attach a guide rail assembly was known before the effective filing date of this application and to have modified Stowers with a guide rail assembly so as to have it screwed into the upper the lower walls would have been an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics so as to gain all of the know benefits of using screws (ease of assembly, inexpensive, etc.).
In re Claim 5, Stowers discloses wherein the box body 2 comprises a back board, side boards, a front board, a top board and a bottom board, one side board is arranged on each of two sides of the back board, the side boards are connected to the front board, the top board is installed at upper portions of the back board and the front board, the bottom board is installed on bottom surfaces of the back board and the front board, the main circuit board is installed on the back board by means of screws, and the adapter circuit board is connected to the front board. See Stowers, Figures 1, 2, 4, 5A, 6.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowers et al. (US Patent 5,103,378), Eller (US Patent 6,350,130) and further in view of Jung (US Patent 5,967,633).
In re Claim 6, Stowers as modified by Eller discloses the limitations as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose a sliding door, as Stowers discloses an opening in a front board (See Stowers, Figure 2) but has a rotating door. However, providing a sliding door was not knew in the art. For example, Jung discloses an opening in a front board (See Jung, Figure 2) wherein a sliding door 60 is inserted in the opening, wherein the door comprises snap grooves 52a, 60a to engage the door to the opening of the front board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics at a time before the effective filing date to have provided a sliding door, like that disclosed in Jung, in substitution of the rotating door as otherwise disclosed in Stowers, so as to provide a larger opening in the front board to gain greater access to inside the apparatus for improved ergonomics and to ease maintenance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jinhee Lee can be reached on 571 272 1977. 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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841