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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 5,490,011 by Pernick et al., (Pernick hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Pernick teaches in Figure 1, a customizable safety enclosure for a device under test (DUT), the enclosure comprising:
a plurality of non-conductive panels (22, 24, 26, 28, 29; made of acrylic material as mentioned in col. 1, lines 28-29) to enclose the DUT (device undergoing inspection that may be positioned within the enclosure; **see comments below); and
a plurality of non-conductive removeable corner joints (12, 14, 16; made of plastic; see col. 1, lines 42-43) each configured to secure a corner of the enclosure (in the manner illustrated in Figure 1), the corner comprising an intersection of at least three of the plurality of non-conductive panels (for example, the corner comprising the intersection of panels 22, 24 and 28);
wherein the plurality of non-conductive panels and the plurality of non-conductive
removeable corner joints are configured to provide a substantially fully enclosed electrically
insulative barrier between the DUT and an environment outside the enclosure (once the DUT is placed within the enclosure, it is surrounded on all sides by electrically insulating panels made of plastic material, providing a barrier between the DUT and the environment outside the enclosure).
** It’s noted that the preamble phrase: “A customizable safety enclosure for a device under test (DUT)” as well as the recitation “a plurality of non-conductive panels to enclose the DUT” describes the manner of intended use of the claimed enclosure. The “DUT” itself is not recited as part of the enclosure, but rather as a device that is intended to be accommodated within the enclosure. As long as the prior art teaches the structure as recited and the structure of the prior art is capable of being used as intended, the prior art anticipates the claim. In the instant claim, Pernick teaches an enclosure that is capable of accommodating a device within it. For example, a user may accommodate a cellular phone within the enclosure to test whether the cellular phone rings while inside enclosure, hence “testing” it’s reception capabilities within an enclosure. Because Pernick teaches the claimed structure, and the claimed structure is capable of being used as intended, the prior art anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Pernick teaches in Figure 1, the corner joints are removeable and
installable, by a user, without using tools or fasteners (see col. 1, lines 27-30: “The panels of the enclosures… can be assembled without tools, fasteners, or adhesives”). The examiner notes that, removing panels from the corner joints is equivalent to removing corner joints from the panels. That is, the entire assembly may be assembled without the necessity of special tools, as explained in col. 3, lines 51-53.
Regarding claim 4, Pernick teaches the enclosure of claim 1, in which the corner joints (12, 14 and 16) are structured to be installable symmetrically in three possible orientations (each corner joint can be connected in any of the position - and hence orientation - of the others because of their interchangeability).
Regarding claim 5, Pernick teaches in Figure 1, the enclosure of claim 1, further comprising a non-conductive removable edge joint (18) configured to secure an edge of the enclosure (just as corner joints 12, 14 and 16, the edge joint secures an edge of the enclosure, the edge being formed by panel 26).
Regarding claim 6, Pernick teaches the enclosure of claim 5, in which the edge joint (18) is removeable and installable, by a user, without using tools or fasteners (see col. 1, lines 27-30: “The panels of the enclosures… can be assembled without tools, fasteners, or adhesives”). The examiner notes that, removing panels from the corner joints and edge join is equivalent to removing edge joint from the panels. That is, the entire assembly may be assembled without the necessity of special tools, as explained in col. 3, lines 51-53.
Regarding claim 7, Pernick teaches the enclosure of claim 5, in which the edge joint can be used in a symmetrically in two possible orientations (the edge joint 18 can be connected in any of the position - and hence orientation - of the corner joints 12, 14 and 16).
Regarding claim 10, Pernick shows in Figure 4 the enclosure of claim 1, further comprising a divider panel (the enclosure may be assembled as a series of individual enclosures, wherein at least one panel separates or “divides” two enclosure spaces).
Regarding claim 11, Pernick shows in Figure 4, the divider panel (see rejection of claim 10 above) forms an air plenum (by virtue of opening 72 that allows the passage of air) within the enclosure.
Regarding claim 17, Pernick shows in Figure 1, the enclosure of claim 1, further comprising a non-conductive printed circuit board (PCB) holder (bottom panel 20, which is capable of holding a PCB on its surface).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernick in view of the US Patent US 4,948,203 by Amstutz et al. et al., (Amstutz hereafter).
As to claim(s) 8, Pernick substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning an edge guard.
Amstutz teaches in Figure 6a, an edge guard (18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of edge guards as taught by Amstutz, in the device/system/method of Pernick, in order to gain the advantage of protecting the corners of the enclosure from unintended damage from external elements accidentally bumping against the enclosure.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernick in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2008/0106294 by Smith, (Smith hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 12, Pernick substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning an access door.
Smith teaches in Figure 16, placing an access door on top panel of an enclosure to allow access to elements within a testing system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of using access doors as taught by Smith, in the device/system/method of Pernick, in order to gain the advantage of allow quick access to the inside the enclosure, and allow tasks like cleaning the interior.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernick in view of Smith and further in view of the US Patent US 5,613,746 by Green et al., (Green hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 13, Pernick in view of Smith substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the access door being attached by a non-conductive elastomer hinge.
However, the use of elastomeric hinges is well known in the art. For example, Green teaches the use of elastomeric hinges 42, 44, 46 and 48 allowing access panels to open and close and provide access to the interior of a desk assembly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of elastomeric hinges as taught by Green, in the device/system/method of Pernick in view of Smith, in order to gain the advantage of providing flexible mean that reduce the presence of metal in generic metal hinges such as those described by Smith, thus reducing weight and minimizing detrimental effects of metal on testing equipment such as interference.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernick in view of Smith and further in view of the US Patent US 4,460,868 by Schmitt et al. (Schmitt hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 14, Pernick in view of Smith substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning a safety interlock circuit.
Schmitt teaches in column 4, lines 50-53, a safety interlock in a covered testing apparatus, which prevents operation of the test circuit unless the cover is in place.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of safety interlock circuits as taught by Schmitt, in the device/system/method of Pernick in view of Smith, in order to prevent damage to the devices under test if one of the panels or access door is accidentally opened as the testing cycle is underway.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2005/0068723 by Squillante et al., (Squillante hereafter) in view of Pernick.
Regarding claim 1, Squillante teaches in Figure 1, a customizable safety enclosure for a device under test (DUT), the enclosure comprising:
a plurality of non-conductive panels (panels that make up the rectangular shape box of the computer case 10; see paragraph 0020); made of acrylic material as mentioned in col. 1, lines 28-29) to enclose the DUT (computer processor undergoing inspection that may be positioned within the enclosure; **see comments below);
wherein the plurality of non-conductive panels are configured to provide a substantially fully enclosed electrically insulative barrier between the DUT and an environment outside the enclosure (the computer processor within the computer case is surrounded on all sides by electrically insulating panels made of plastic material, providing a barrier between the DUT and the environment outside the enclosure).
Squillante substantially teaches all of the claimed elements as discussed above, except for teaching the panels are held together by a plurality of non-conductive removeable corner joints. Instead, Pernick teaches the panels (except for removable panel 12) are bonded together (see paragraph 0020, line 10).
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make all panels separable. That is, to allow for the bonded panels to be separable from one another, in order to gain the advantage of making the case more compact when storing or during transportation. In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Furthermore, Pernick teaches an enclosure comprising a plurality of separate panels that are secured together using a plurality of non-conductive removeable corner joints (12, 14, 16; made of plastic; see col. 1, lines 42-43) each configured to secure a corner of the enclosure (in the manner illustrated in Figure 1), the corner comprising an intersection of at least three of the plurality of non-conductive panels (for example, the corner comprising the intersection of panels 22, 24 and 28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to use the teachings of non-conductive corner joints as taught by Pernick, an include corner joints in order to secure separable panels in the device of Squillante. Doing so would allow the computer case to be put together or taken apart without the use of specialized equipment (see col. 1, lines 27-30: “The panels of the enclosures… can be assembled without tools, fasteners, or adhesives”).
** It’s noted that the preamble phrase: “A customizable safety enclosure for a device under test (DUT)” as well as the recitation “a plurality of non-conductive panels to enclose the DUT” describes the manner of intended use of the claimed enclosure. The “DUT” itself is not recited as part of the enclosure, but rather as a device that is intended to be accommodated within the enclosure. As long as the prior art teaches the structure as recited and the structure of the prior art is capable of being used as intended, the prior art anticipates the claim. In the instant claim, Squillante teaches an enclosure (computer case) that is capable of accommodating a device (computer processor) within it. A user may test the device while inside the enclosure by, for example, running a program and verifying that the device works as expected. Because Squillante teaches the claimed structure, and the claimed structure is capable of being used as intended, the prior art anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 2, although Squillante doesn’t explicitly mention the enclosure includes a cable egress opening, Squillante mentions in paragraph 0023, line 6, that the enclosure includes a power supply. Inherently, the power supply is designed to be connected to an external power outlet via a power cord or power connector. Thus, the enclosure inherently includes a cable egress opening to allow said power cord or power connector to extend/connect outside the enclosure.
Regarding claim 9, Squillante teaches enclosure of claim 1, further comprising an active cooling system (including fan 41).
Regarding claim 12, Squillante shows in Figure 1, the enclosure further comprising an access door (slidable side wall 12).
Regarding claim 15, Squillante teaches the enclosure of claim 1, further comprising a non-conductive removeable post (chassis 22) to support the DUT within the enclosure (see paragraph 0023, lines 2-3. The chassis is made of the same clear plastic, acrylic material as the case).
Regarding claim 16, Squillante in view of Pernick teaches the panels are removable and installable from/to the chassis without the use of tools (See Pernick: col. 1, lines 27-30: “The panels of the enclosures… can be assembled without tools, fasteners, or adhesives”). Thus, the action of removable the panels from the chassis is equivalent to the action of removing the chassis from the panels, without the use of tools.
Regarding claim 17, Squillante shows in Figure 1, the enclosure further comprising a non-conductive printed circuit board (PCB) holder (chassis 22; see paragraph 0023, lines 1-3 and lines 5-8). The chassis is made of the same plastic, acrylic material as the panels.
Regarding claim 20, Squillante shows in Figure 1, one or more of fiber-optic task
lighting, battery-powered task lighting, and cable routing retainers (40, see paragraph 0039).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squillante in view of Pernick and further in view of the US Patent No. 6,118,288 by Kang (Kang hereafter).
Regarding claim 19, Squillante in view of Pernick substantially teaches all of the claimed elements as discussed above, except for the use of a ferrous base plate, in which the PCB holder includes a magnet.
Kang teaches an adaptive PCB testing system including rearrangeable test probes, comprising a non-conductive printed board holder/post (Figure 2, element 6), a ferrous base plate (4), where the PCB holder includes a magnet (7, made of magnetic material as explained in col. 3, lines 55-61) that may be reconfigurable (removable and installable by simply lifting and reinstalling) to suit configurations of the PCB under test.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of rearrangeable test probes (including a non-conductive printed board holder, ferrous base plate and magnet) as taught by Kang, in the device of Squillante in view of Pernick, in order to allow for a quick removal and replacement of the device under test, thereby allowing the system to quickly remove/replace a malfunctioning PCB.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
In terms of claim 18, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a customizable safety enclosure, including a PCB holder, in which the PCB holder includes a clamp stem, a grip collar, a base, and a spring structured to put a force on the grip collar to hold the DUT between the grip collar and the clamp stem, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights