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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, the applicant argues:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees that Amstutz teaches or suggests "a plurality of non- conductive removeable corner joints each configured to secure a corner of the enclosure," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action does not cite a particular portion of Amstutz. Nevertheless, the Applicant respectfully submits that nothing in Amstutz teaches “a plurality of non-conductive removable corner joints each configured to secure a corner of the enclosure”
“Amstutz teaches a lighted display case, such as a showcase for merchandise. Amstutz Abstract. As taught by Amstutz, the showcase 10 includes a base 14 and a frame 15 mounted to the base. The frame 15 includes a top frame member 16, a bottom frame member, and "a plurality of corner posts 18 extended between the top and bottom members." Col. 4 lines 47-52 (emphasis added). Col. 5 lines 56 through col. 7 line 27 further describe these corner posts. Amstutz explicitly teaches that the corner posts are metallic, and therefore, conductive. See, col. 5 lines 56-57 ("Referring to FIG. 3, showcase corners 32 includes corner posts 50 which are roll-formed of stainless steel." (emphasis added)); see also col. 6 lines 23-26 ("The purpose of this configuration is to allow corner post surface 158 to be tack-welded to frame surface 34 for enhanced strength" (emphasis added)). Therefore, since Amstutz explicitly teaches metallic corner posts which secure the corners of the display case, Amstutz necessarily fails to teach or suggest "a plurality of non-conductive removeable corner joints" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).”
Furthermore, Amstutz teaches that the corner posts 50 are either welded to the top frame and bottom frame, see, e.g. col. 6 lines 23-26, 33-37, or secured to the top frame and/or bottom frame using "wedge member" 60, and an adhesive, see e.g col. 6 lines 6-10. Welding or securing the corner posts using adhesive would make them fixed in place and not "removable." Therefore, since Amstutz explicitly teaches using welding or an adhesive for attaching the corner posts, Amstutz necessarily fails to teach or suggest "a plurality of non-conductive removeable corner joints" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it’s noted the Non-Final Office Action cites Figure 6a, and equates portions 68+66 in Figure 6a to the recited corner joints (see Non-Final Office Action, rejection of claims 5, 6, 7 and 8). Second, the examiner notes that the Office Action identifies portions 68+66 as the non-conductive panels, not the metallic corner posts as argued. Whether the corner posts are welded would appear irrelevant. Amstutz is relied upon for its teachings of non-conductive corner joints, not metallic posts.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection presented below. The applicant is invited to contact the examiner should a telephonic interview help clarify the examiner’s position and/or to discuss potential amendments before submitting a reply to this Office Action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 11/24/2025, is as follows:
- Claims 1-20 are pending.
- Claims 1 have been amended.
- No claim has been canceled and no additional claim has been added.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 5,416,427 by Tracewell (Tracewell hereafter) in view of the US Patent US 4,948,203 by Amstutz et al. et al., (Amstutz hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 1, Tracewell teaches in Figure(s) 1, a customizable safety enclosure for a device under test (DUT), the enclosure comprising:
a plurality of non-conductive panels (transparent panels 118 and 110, made of tinted polycarbonate material as explained in column 7, line 47 as well as panel 214 shown in Fig. 3, see col. 10, lines 34-36 and col. 7, lines 44-48) to enclose the DUT (cards under evaluation, see Abstract);
a plurality of removable corner joints (upper and lower corner ends of the curved portions in the panel-supporting frames 109 and 110 that join the frames to the system using screws, as illustrated in Figure 1 and also the annotated figure below. The corner joints being removable from the system by sliding it out together with the panels) each configured to secure a corner of the enclosure (the removable corner joints secure the corners of the enclosure via screws 114, 115, 122 and 123);
wherein the plurality of non-conductive panels and the plurality of removable corner joints are configured to provide a substantially fully enclosed electrically insulative barrier between the DUT and an environment outside the enclosure (for example, when carrying out air flow and heat analysis, see col. 7, lines 44-47).
PNG
media_image1.png
1017
1597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 - Tracewell
Tracewell substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the removable corner joints are non-conductive.
Amstutz teaches in Figure 6a, the use of non-conductive corner joints (attachment members 66+68) made of non-conductive material (flexible polymer, see col. 6, line 62) that is inserted between corner supports (18) and window panels (64), in order to secure said panels at corners of an enclosure. The corner joints provide gripping means, for frictionally gripping lateral ends of the panels (see Figure 6a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
586
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6a - Amstutz
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teachings of non-conductive corner joints as taught by Amstutz, and include non-conductive corner joints at each corner where adjacent panels 118, 214 and 110 meet to form the enclosure in Tracewell’s system, thus gripping and securing adjacent panels before being screwed into and fastened to the frame.
As to claim(s) 2, Tracewell teaches in Figure(s) 4, a cable egress opening (any of the openings shown for example in Figure 4, distributing cables 288 within areas of the enclosure).
As to claim(s) 3 and 4, Amstutz teaches in Figure(s) 1, the enclosure of claim 1, in which the corner joints are removeable and installable, by a user, without using tools or fasteners (for example, there doesn’t appear to be a need to use a tool such as a screw driver to position Amstutz’s corner joints in place) and installable symmetrically in three possible orientations (upside down, left to right and rotated 180 degrees).
The examiner notes that the recitation “the corner joints are removable and installable, by a user, without using tools or fasteners” and “installable symmetrically in three possible orientations” appears to describe the intended manner of use of the device rather than describing structural characteristics of the device that would differentiate it from prior art or would allow it to be operated in the recited manner. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As to claim(s) 5, Amstutz teaches in Figure(s) 6a, a non-conductive removable edge joint (68, made of flexible polymeric material) configured to secure an edge of the enclosure.
As to claim(s) 6, Amstutz teaches in Figure(s) 6a, the edge joint (66) is removeable and installable, by a user, without using tools or fasteners (without for example, the need of using a screw driver).
The examiner notes that the recitation “the edge joint is removable and installable by a user, without using tools or fasteners” appears to describe the intended manner of use of the device rather than describing structural characteristics of the device that would differentiate it from prior art or would allow it to be operated in the recited manner. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As to claim(s) 7, Amstutz teaches in Figure(s) 6a, the edge joint can be used in a symmetrically in two possible orientations (edge joint 68 has symmetry on at least one axis and may be used in the illustrated position or rotated 180 degrees on its symmetry axis).
As to claim(s) 8, Tracewell 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 Tracewell, in order to gain the advantage of protecting the corners of the enclosure from unintended damage from external elements accidentally bumping against the enclosure.
As to claim(s) 9, Tracewell teaches in Figure(s) 2, an active cooling system (190 + 192).
As to claim(s) 10, Tracewell teaches the enclosure of claim 1, further comprising a divider panel (panel shown in Figure 2, that divides the forward face 64 from the back face 70, also shown in Figure 3).
As to claim(s) 11, Tracewell teaches in Figure(s) 3, the divider panel forms an air plenum within the enclosure (by virtue of providing a channel through which air flows from fans 190).
As to claim(s) 15 and 16, Tracewell teaches in Figure(s) 2, a removable post to support the DUT within the enclosure (support component 22 which, together with the rest of apparatus 10 may be picked up by the user and “removed” from a given area and placed in different area without using a fastener or tools).
The examiner notes that because the claim doesn’t explicitly mention what the post is removeable from, the interpretation above is reasonable. Nevertheless, even if the post was recited as being “removable” with respect to the enclosure, the courts have 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.” In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In the instant claim, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the post removable so that it may be easily replaced when defective.
Tracewell doesn’t explicitly mention the removable post is non-conductive. However, the examiner takes Official Notice with respect to the fact it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to use a non-conductive material (such as plastic) in the construction of the removable post, in order to prevent accidental shorts within traces/circuits of the device under inspection.
As to claim(s) 20, Tracewell teaches in Figure 4, cable routing retainers (hall sensors 280, 279, 278 which “retain” the cables so as to measure current flowing through them). Alternatively, the examiner interprets routing retainers as the Tracewell’s cable ties that help organize the wires as explained in col 12, line 52.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracewell in view of Amstutz and further in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2008/0106294 by Smith, (Smith hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 12, Tracewell in view of Amstutz 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 Tracewell in view of Amstutz, in order to gain the advantage of allow quick access to elements in Tracewell's system, such as the top assembly 40 and expedite routine maintenance of elements within said assembly.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracewell in view of Amstutz, 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, Tracewell in view of Amstutz and 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 Tracewell in view of Amstutz and 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 Tracewell in view of Amstutz, 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, Tracewell in view of Amstutz and 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 Tracewell in view of Amstutz and 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 1 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent 7,421,365 by Repko et al. (Repko hereafter), in view of Tracewell and further in view of Amstutz.
In terms of claim(s) 1, Repko teaches in Figure(s) 1, a customizable safety enclosure for a device under test (DUT), the enclosure comprising: a plurality of panels (136, 138) to enclose the DUT (circuit board, see col. 2, line 62). Repko substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the panels are non-conductive.
Tracewell teaches in Figure(s) 1, a customizable safety enclosure for a device under test (DUT), the enclosure comprising: a plurality of non-conductive panels (transparent panels 118 and 110, made of tinted polycarbonate material as explained in column 7, line 47) to enclose a DUT.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teachings of transparent non-conductive polycarbonate panels as taught by Tracewell, in the device/system/method of Repko, in order to gain the ability to monitor the DUT inside the chamber during the testing process.
Repko in view of Tracewell substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the use of non-conductive removeable corner joints for holding panels of an enclosure together (Repko appears to secure the panels onto a frame using screws).
Amstutz teaches in Figure 6a, the use of non-conductive corner joints (attachment members 66+68) made of non-conductive material (flexible polymer, see col. 6, line 62) that is inserted between corner supports (18) and window panels (64), in order to secure said panels at corners of an enclosure. The corner joints provide gripping means, for frictionally gripping lateral ends of the panels (see Figure 6a above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teachings of non-conductive corner joints as taught by Amstutz, and include non-conductive corner joints at each corner where adjacent panels meet to form the enclosure in Repko’s in view of Tracewell’s system, thus gripping and securing adjacent panels before being fastened to the frame.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repko in view of Tracewell, Amstutz and further in view of the US Patent No. 6,118,288 by Kang (Kang hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 15-17 and 19, Repko in view of Tracewell and Amstutz substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning a non-conductive circuit board holder/post and a ferrous base plate (4), where the PCB holder includes a magnet, and wherein the post is removable and installable, by the user, without using tools of fasteners.
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/system/method of Repko in view of Tracewell and Amstutz, in order to allow for a quick reconfiguration of the contact probes, thereby allowing the system to test PCBs with different contact separations/configurations.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 January 8, 2026