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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 12/31/2025, wherein claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 17 were amended, claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending.
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.
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) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leischner (DE102012111393A1) in view of Limbacher (US 20220399701 A1), HomeDepot (see webpage attached).
With respect to claim 1, Leischner discloses an explosion-proof housing comprising: a non-metallic first housing part (15 abstract) surrounding a first interior accessible via a first housing opening, wherein the first housing opening is completely surrounded in circumferential direction by a first flange (18) that comprises a first connection surface (28/29) completely surrounding the first housing opening, a non-metallic second housing part (16 abstract) surrounding a second interior accessible via a second housing opening, wherein the second housing opening is completely surrounded in circumferential direction by a second flange (20) that comprises a second connection surface (28/29) completely surrounding the second housing opening, wherein the first housing part and the second housing part are connected to one another at a first connection surface of the first housing part and a second connection surface (28-29) of the second housing part facing one another in a substance bond manner and/or by means of adhesion (abstract).
Leishcner failed to disclose wherein the first housing part adjacent to the first connection surface outside the first interior and the second housing part adjacent to the second connection surface outside the second interior respectively comprise at least one reinforcement projection having a reinforcement element attached thereon respectively; wherein each reinforcement element is plate-shaped or strip-shaped; and wherein a length of each reinforcement element is at least 80% of a length of the reinforcement projection on which the reinforcement element is arranged. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely explosion proof containers, Limbacher taught of a container with clamping structures (50, 51, 36 of fig 10b) attached to the flange in addition to adhesive securement (page 3 [0036]) in order to create a stronger attachment. The outermost rectangular feature in figure 10B can be considered the metallic reinforcement element and is strip-shaped. Item 50 can be considered the at least one reinforcement projection. See note below about the length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of explosion-proof containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one reinforcement projection having a metallic reinforcement element as taught by Limbacher in the container of Leishcner since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Leischner teaches an explosion proof container and adding at least one reinforcement projection having a metallic reinforcement element as taught by Limbacher would maintain the same functionality of Leischner, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Note: As 3-dimensional objects, the length of the metallic reinforcement element and the length of the reinforcement projection can be the length as seen from cross section of figure 10B of Limbacher.
Leischner does not outright state that the reinforcement element is metallic. However, Home Depot (see webpage attached) shows exemplary reinforcement elements that are metallic. A metallic structure for these clamping elements are common. Further, the reference shows the metallic reinforcement as strip shaped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine metallic components with this well-known technique in order to create a clamping structure.
Examiner Note: Clamps can also be employed to hold together the two pieces after a frictional weld.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the first housing part comprises one reinforcement projection (50 of 36 of Limbacher) of the at least one reinforcement projection respectively on two opposite sides and wherein the second housing part comprises one reinforcement projection (51 of 36 of Limbacher) of the at least one reinforcement projection respectively on two opposite sides. (Note clamps can be placed between grooves of the rightmost face of figure 1 of Leishner. To balance that clamp, one would be placed on the back most [not visible] face in similar places)
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each reinforcement projection of the second housing part (51 of Limbacher) is arranged adjacent to each reinforcement projection (50 of Limbacher) of the first housing part, which are connected by means of a coupling device (36 of Limbacher).
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein a releasable connection, is established between the reinforcement projections arranged adjacent one another by means of the coupling device (36 of Limbacher).
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the coupling device comprises at least one coupling element (36 of Limbacher), which connects the reinforcement projections and/or metallic reinforcement elements arranged adjacent one another.
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each metallic reinforcement element is a metallic reinforcement sheet material. (can consider back of clamp in figure 10B a reinforcement element)
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each metallic reinforcement element (back element of figure 10B) is releasably arranged on the respective assigned reinforcement projection (50 of Limbacher).
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Leischner further discloses wherein the first connection surface and/or the second connection surface comprises or comprise at least one connection projection (projection above 28/29 of Leischner), which is closed in circumferential direction in a ring-shaped manner.
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each metallic reinforcement projection and each reinforcement element are arranged at least in a center section along the respective side of the first housing part and the second housing part.
Examiner Note: Bounds of a center “section” aren’t clear. Further the phrasing “at least” broadens the limitation. The claim language is met by arranging 4 clamps on each side between each groove of the front most facing side of figure 1 (and the back most side not shown).
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each reinforcement projection and each metallic reinforcement element (50, 51, 36 of Limbacher) is arranged in circumferential direction partly or entirely along a stiffening assembly (ribs/grooved surfaces between ribs of the front most facing side of figure 1 Leischner) of the respective housing part.
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Leischner further discloses wherein a length of the stiffening assembly (grooved surfaces between ribs of the front most facing side of figure 1) and/or an adjacent reinforcement projection and/or the metallic reinforcement element in circumferential direction is minimum 50% of the length of the respective side (front/right most side of figure 1) of the housing part in circumferential direction.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Leischner further discloses wherein each stiffening assembly comprises multiple stiffening ribs (figure 1) that connect the respective first flange or second flange with an adjoining wall section of the respective housing part.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 13, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Leischener further discloses wherein each flange comprises a web (26 of Leischner) that extends under formation of an interstice with distance to the wall section of the respective housing part, wherein the stiffening ribs (figure 1) establish a connection between the web (26) and the wall section inside the interstice.
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the releasable connection is a screw connection (screw formation of Limbachers clamp).
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 5, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the at least one coupling element is a screw (screw of Limbachers clamp).
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the coupling device comprises at least one coupling element (screw of Limbachers clamp), which connects the metallic reinforcement projections and/or reinforcement elements arranged opposite one another.
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 17, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each metallic reinforcement element is plate-shaped or strip-shaped. (can consider back of clamp in figure 10B a reinforcement element of Limbacher)
With respect to claim 19, the references as applied to claim 18, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each metallic reinforcement element is a metallic reinforcement sheet material. (can consider back of clamp in figure 10B a reinforcement element)
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 19, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein each metallic reinforcement element ( back of clamp in figure 10B a reinforcement element) is releasably arranged on the respective assigned reinforcement projection (50/51).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20230195227-A1 OR US-20220399701-A1OR US-4664281-A OR US-4620061-A OR US-12300988-B2 OR US-20150076156-A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, see response, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the claim objection and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 10/6/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to prior art rejections, applicant insists that the amendments overcome the prior rejection. With respect to the length limitation. As a three dimensional object, length can be measured from multiple directions and references. In the prior art, there is at least one length directions for a length of the metallic reinforcement element to be at least 80% of a length of the reinforcement projection. See rejection above for more details. Applicant also states that “locally clamping the flanges together is used to create a flameproof gap between the flanges, but is unable to counteract undesired deformations of the housing and particularly deformations in bulging of the longitudinal side walls.” However, the aforementioned bulging and deformations is a theorized result and not a definitive reaction. The creation of bulges or deformations would be dependent upon the pressure applied by the clamp. It is recommended that the applicant add additional structure to describe their metallic reinforcement element to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735