DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 February 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “expanders” in claims 1, 7 and 11; “constraint portion” in claim 1; and “fixing portion” in claims 2-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Axelrod (US Pat. No. 7,021,242 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Axelrod teaches an electronic device rack comprising: a bottom plate portion (14); a top plate portion (12) spaced apart from the bottom plate portion in a vertical direction; a pair of expanders (20, 22) between the bottom plate portion and the top plate portion, the pair of expanders being spaced apart from each other in a width direction, each expander being configured to individually expand in the vertical direction to be in an expanded state (e.g.; in Fig. 1); and a constraint portion (e.g.; 19) provided between the bottom plate portion and the top plate portion and configured to constrain the pair of expanders in the expanded state (i.e.; wall are retained/locked in place; Col 6, Lines 2-16).
In regards to claim 2, Axelrod teaches the constraint portion includes constraint portions (16-19), and wherein each constraint portion includes: a plate-shaped member having an upper end and a lower end, the plate-shaped member being rotatable around one of the upper end and the lower end as an axis, the axis extending in a longitudinal direction crossing the vertical direction and the width direction (Col 4, Lines 55-67; Col 5, Lines 1-44); and a fixing portion (i.e.; a fastener) configured to fix the plate-shaped member in a state where a plate surface of the plate-shaped member is along the vertical direction (Col 6, Lines 2-16).
In regards to claim 3, Axelrod teaches the plate-shaped member includes a first plate-shaped (e.g.; 16) member and a second plate-shaped member (e.g.; 18) which are provided side by side in the vertical direction, and wherein the fixing portion is configured to connect the first plate-shaped member and the second plate-shaped member to each other (Col 6, Lines 2-16).
In regards to claim 7, Axelrod teaches the constraint portions (e.g.; 18 and 19) are provided inside of the pair of expanders in the width direction (see Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 10, Axelrod teaches the plate-shaped member includes a support portion (e.g.; the holes therein) capable of supporting an electronic instrument (e.g.; by use of a fastener through the hole).
In regards to claim 11, Axelrod teaches each expander (20, 22) being configured to individually contract in the vertical direction to be in an contracted state (in Fig. 1), and wherein the pair of expanders are configured to converge on the inside of an area in which the top plate portion and the bottom plate portion overlap as seen from above in the contracted state (in Fig. 4).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod (US Pat. No. 7,021,242 B2).
In regards to claim 5, Axelrod teaches the plate-shaped member includes a first plate-shaped member (e.g.; 16) and a second plate-shaped member (e.g.; 18) which are provided side by side in the vertical direction, and wherein the fixing portion includes a connection pin and an insertion hole (i.e.; pin or mechanical fastener; Col 6, Lines 2-5). In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognizes a pin and mechanical faster (such as a screw of bolt) would have a cooperating insertion hole.
Furthermore, Axelrod teaches the plate members (i.e.; walls) are secured along their vertical edge (Col 6, Lines 5-7), and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Axelrod’s connection pin protruding toward the second plate-shaped member at one of the upper end and the lower end of the first plate-shaped member (e.g.; along the vertical edge), the insertion hole being configured such that the connection pin is inserted into the insertion hole. The motivation would be for the purpose of securing the plate-shaped members at any location along the vertical edges with predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod (US Pat. No. 7,021,242 B2) in view of Katsuura et al. (US Pat. No. 5,593,046).
In regards to claim 12, Axelrod teaches an electronic device unit comprising: the electronic device rack according to claim 1, but does not teach an electronic instrument that is mounted in the electronic device rack.
Katsuura teaches a electronic device unit in the form of a collapsible housing frame (100) used to mount electronic instruments therein (Col 1, Lines 28-37).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Axelrod’s device unit such that it is adapted to have an electronic instrument that is mounted in the electronic device rack. The motivation would be for the purpose of proving an additional use as a collapsible housing frame for various electric and electronic equipment as taught by Katsuura (Col 1, Lines 6-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest modifying Axelrod’s device to include the structural and functional limitations of claims 4, 6, 8 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631