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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Zhang and Czech was disclosed in the IDS.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 113948996 A) in view of Donovan (U.S 11,456,499).
In regards to Claim 1, Zhang discloses a metal enclosure for electrical switchgear (Fig.1), the metal enclosure is configured to be pressurized above atmospheric pressure (Fig.1, #1, 2, and in conjunction with #3 make up the metal enclosure), the metal enclosure comprising: metal walls (Fig.1, #1, 2, #3 are metal walls) sealing a volume for accommodating the electrical switchgear (Fig.1, “Medium-pressure gas insulating switch cabinet is miniaturized, maintenance-free, free from environmental influence, in recent years to obtain the actual application in a plurality of power projects. the air chamber is used as the main switch bearing compartment and the insulating compartment, it is one of the core components of the medium-pressure gas insulating switch cabinet, the main loop components are intensively sealed in the gas chamber”) the metal walls including a first metal wall (Fig.1, #32) arranged opposite a second metal wall (Fig.1, #31), wherein the second metal wall includes elongated pockets on the inside face of the second metal wall (Fig.1 and 2, #31 includes a plurality of elongated pockets).
Zhang fails to disclose: Metal beams arranged and attached in the elongated pockets, the metal beams are configured to strengthen the structural integrity of the second metal wall, a plane of the inside face of the second metal wall is substantially aligned with a plane of a surface of the metal beams that faces inside the metal enclosure. However, Donovan discloses: Metal beams (Fig.2, #224) arranged and attached in the elongated pockets, the metal beams are configured to strengthen the structural integrity of the second metal wall (Fig.2, Column 6, lines 30-34, which discloses using metal beams to increase structural integrity of the chassis), a plane of the inside face of the second metal wall is substantially aligned with a plane of a surface of the metal beams that faces inside the metal enclosure (Fig.2, as such the office notes that with the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang) would be modified to include metal beams between within said pockets (as taught by Donovan) to increase the structural integrity of enclosure).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang) to include metal beams between within said pockets (as taught by Donovan) to increase the structural integrity of enclosure. By adding metal beams to the second wall of the enclosure to provide resistance to compressive forces along the chassis, thereby protecting the internal components.
In regards to Claim 2, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 1, wherein a width of the metal beams substantially fills a width of the pockets (With the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the metal beams (as taught by Donovan) would be sized to fit within the pockets (as taught by Zhang), as MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A notes that a mere change in size/proportion from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thus wherein width of the metal beams substantially fills the width of the pocket, is simply a mere change in the size of the metal beam which is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04, citing, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A Change in size/proportion).
In regards to Claim 3, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the metal beams substantially corresponds to a depth of the pockets (With the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the metal beams (as taught by Donovan) would be sized to fit within the pockets (as taught by Zhang), as MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A notes that a mere change in size/proportion from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thus wherein the thickness of the metal beams substantially corresponds to a depth of the pocket, is simply a mere change in the size of the metal beam which is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04, citing, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A Change in size/proportion).
In regards to Claim 5, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 1, wherein the metal beams are welded to the pockets (Donovan Fig.2 #224 are welded to the pockets, see column 6, lines 38-41 which discloses #224 can be welded in place, as such the office notes that with the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the metal beams (as taught by Donovan) would be placed/welded within the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang) to ensure the integrity of the metal enclosure).
In regards to Claim 7, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 1, comprising a third metal wall (Zhang, Fig.1, #33 is a third metal wall) connected with both the first metal wall and the second metal wall, the third metal wall including a planar inner surface (Zhang, Fig.1, #33 is a third metal wall connected between the first and second metal wall having a planar inner surface).
In regards to Claim 14, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 1, wherein the walls of the metal enclosure are made from steel (Donovan, the enclosure can be made of steel, see Column 10, table 1, “case materials”).
In regards to Claim 15, Zhang discloses a gas insulated switchgear comprising: a set of electrical switches (Fig.1); and a metal enclosure for electrical switchgear (Fig.1 and “the air chamber is used as the main switch bearing compartment and the insulating compartment, which is one of the core components of the medium-pressure gas insulating switch cabinet, the main loop components are all intensively sealed in the air chamber, therefore, when the medium-pressure gas insulating switch cabinet is operated”), a metal enclosure (Fig.1, is a metal enclosure) is configured to be pressurized above atmospheric pressure (Fig.1, with corrugated wall structure #31, would enable said enclosure to be pressurized above atmospheric pressure), the metal enclosure comprising: metal walls (Fig.1 #31/32/33) sealing a volume for accommodating the electrical switchgear (Fig.1), the metal walls including a first metal wall (Fig.1, #32) arranged opposite a second metal wall (Fig.1, #31), wherein the second metal wall includes elongated pockets on the inside face of the second metal wall (Fig.1 and 2, #31 includes a plurality of elongated pockets).
Zhang fails to disclose: Metal beams arranged and attached in the elongated pockets, the metal beams are configured to strengthen the structural integrity of the second metal wall, a plane of the inside face of the second metal wall is substantially aligned with a plane of a surface of the metal beams that faces inside the metal enclosure.
However, Donovan discloses: Metal beams (Fig.2, #224) arranged and attached in the elongated pockets, the metal beams are configured to strengthen the structural integrity of the second metal wall (Fig.2, Column 6, lines 30-34, which discloses using metal beams to increase structural integrity of the chassis), a plane of the inside face of the second metal wall is substantially aligned with a plane of a surface of the metal beams that faces inside the metal enclosure (Fig.2, as such the office notes that with the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang) would be modified to include metal beams between within said pockets (as taught by Donovan) to increase the structural integrity of enclosure).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang) to include metal beams between within said pockets (as taught by Donovan) to increase the structural integrity of enclosure. By adding metal beams to the second wall of the enclosure to provide resistance to compressive forces along the chassis, thereby protecting the internal components.
In regards to Claim 16, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 2, wherein a thickness of the metal beams substantially corresponds to a depth of the pockets (With the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the metal beams (as taught by Donovan) would be sized to fit within the pockets (as taught by Zhang), as MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A notes that a mere change in size/proportion from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thus wherein the thickness of the metal beams substantially corresponds to a depth of the pocket, is simply a mere change in the size of the metal beam which is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04, citing, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A Change in size/proportion).
In regards to Claim 18, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 2, wherein the metal beams are welded to the pockets (Donovan Fig.2 #224 are welded to the pockets, see column 6, lines 38-41 which discloses #224 can be welded in place, as such the office notes that with the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the metal beams (as taught by Donovan) would be placed/welded within the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang) to ensure the integrity of the metal enclosure).
In regards to Claim 20, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 2, comprising a third metal wall (Zhang, Fig.1, #33 is a third metal wall) connected with both the first metal wall and the second metal wall, the third metal wall including a planar inner surface (Zhang, Fig.1, #33 is a third metal wall connected between the first and second metal wall having a planar inner surface).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 113948996 A) in view of Donovan (U.S 11,456,499), and further , in view of Czech (DE 102006032396 A1).
In regards to Claim 4, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 1.
Zhang in view of Donovan fail to disclose: Wherein the metal beams and the pocket jointly form a channel, wherein the metal beams include a cut-out at each end portion to allow for gas in-flow and gas-out flow.
However, Czech discloses: Wherein the metal beams (Fig.2, #14/16 which are interpreted as the metal beams) and the pocket jointly form a channel, wherein the metal beams include a cut-out at each end portion to allow for gas in-flow and gas-out flow (Fig.2, #14/16 each have cut out at each end portion to allow gas flow, as such the office notes that with the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the metal beams placed within the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang in view of Donovan) would form a channel to allow air flow through the cut out at each end (as taught by Czech) to efficiently dissipate heat outside of said metal enclosure).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the metal beams placed within the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang in view of Donovan) to include cut out at each end to form channels to allow air flow through the cut out at each end (as taught by Czech) to efficiently dissipate heat outside of said metal enclosure. By modifying the ends to be open, would allow heat air to dissipate through said beams and exhaust to the exterior.
In regards to Claim 17, Zhang in view of Donovan discloses the metal enclosure according to claim 2.
Zhang in view of Donovan fail to disclose: Wherein the metal beams and the pocket jointly form a channel, wherein the metal beams include a cut-out at each end portion to allow for gas in-flow and gas-out flow.
However, Czech discloses: Wherein the metal beams (Fig.2, #14/16 which are interpreted as the metal beams) and the pocket jointly form a channel, wherein the metal beams include a cut-out at each end portion to allow for gas in-flow and gas-out flow (Fig.2, #14/16 each have cut out at each end portion to allow gas flow, as such the office notes that with the combination of Zhang in view of Donovan, the metal beams placed within the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang in view of Donovan) would form a channel to allow air flow through the cut out at each end (as taught by Czech) to efficiently dissipate heat outside of said metal enclosure).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the metal beams placed within the elongated pockets (as taught by Zhang in view of Donovan) to include cut out at each end to form channels to allow air flow through the cut out at each end (as taught by Czech) to efficiently dissipate heat outside of said metal enclosure. By modifying the ends to be open, would allow heat air to dissipate through said beams and exhaust to the exterior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 9, and 19 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.
In regards to Claim 6, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the second wall comprises multiple metal plates that are attached to form the complete second metal wall, wherein the joints between the metal plates are at and along the elongated pockets”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regards to Claim 8, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “comprising corrugations and a set of elongated metal elements attached to an inside surface third metal wall facing the inside of the metal enclosure in the valleys of the corrugations to provide a planar inner surface”, in conjunction with claim 7 and remaining elements.
In regards to Claim 9, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “comprising a set of elongated metal elements attached to the first metal wall and to metal beams of the second metal wall, the elongated metal elements reach through the inner space of the metal enclosure”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
Dependent claims 10-13 are allowably by virtue of their dependency from claim 9.
In regards to Claim 19, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the second wall comprises multiple metal plates that are attached to form the complete second metal wall, wherein the joints between the metal plates are at and along the elongated pockets”, in conjunction with claim 2 and the remaining elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada (U.S 10,263,401 B2) – Discloses a pressure tank comprising a plurality of metal beams welding to a plurality of walls of said tank, wherein said metal beams provide integrity to said tank when pressure is higher than atmospheric.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights