US 10962390

I'll search for the specific patent number in USPTO sources and check for any 2026 CAFC/appellate docket activity.

US Patent 10,962,390 — Summary

Grounding note: I do not have direct API access to USPTO Patent Center or the CAFC CM/ECF docket in this session; the following is based on the authoritative full text of the patent supplied (fetched from Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10962390](/patent/US10962390)/en) plus live web searches. Where searches returned nothing, I say so rather than inferring.

Bibliographic data (literal, as stated in the record)

Literal-reading caveats (not auto-corrected): the specification's Cross‑Reference section states the Italian priority application was "filed Oct. 16, 2018," while the priority date of record is 2017‑10‑16 — the year in that sentence is inconsistent on its face. Also, claim 7 recites that the projection has a shape "complementary to a shape and size of said at least one projection (15)" while element 15 was defined as a recess — i.e., an apparent antecedent/typographical mismatch between "projection" and "recess" in the issued claim text.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A module for a sensor box for automation devices and a respective sensor box includes a containing body, an electronic circuit housed inside the containing body and is designed to define a so‑called master module, or a so‑called slave module. The module also includes one or more main electric contacts emerging from a first side of the containing body, at least one passage for a respective connecting cable for the connection to an outside device and one or more openings, each arranged on a second side of the containing body which is opposite to said first side. The main electric contacts and the openings are arranged in corresponding positions on the first side and on the second side, so that all the main electric contacts emerge from the first side in a position corresponding to that of at least one opening on the second side."

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — the module (hardware claim). A sensor‑box module has:

• a containing body with an electronic circuit inside;
• at least one main electric contact emerging from a first side of the body;
• at least one passage through the body wall to its interior, for a connecting cable that connects the electronic circuit to an external device; and
• at least one opening on the second side, opposite the first side, positioned in correspondence with the main electric contact(s) on the first side, such that each main contact emerges at a location aligned with an opening on the opposite face.

The distinguishing limitation is the last clause: the electronic circuit is configured as a master module or a slave module of a sensor box in which the master and slave modules have identical containing bodies. In other words, the physical housing is a common part, and only the internal circuit design differentiates master from slave — the stated advantage being a single stocked component and reconfigurable sensor boxes.

Claim 9 — the sensor box (assembly claim). A sensor box for connecting at least one control sensor of an automation device, comprising at least two modules according to claim 1, where one is a master module (connecting the box to supplying means and transmitting signals) and another is a slave module (connecting to a respective control sensor). The modules are connected in series from a first master module to a last slave module, with the main electric contact(s) emerging from a given module's first side cooperating with the opening(s) on the second side of the following module — i.e., a plug‑into‑socket cascade along the stack — and all modules are structurally identical to one another.

Dependent claims (brief)

• 2: Opening positioned per a respective contact, or one opening sized to correspond to at least two contacts.
• 3: Master circuit connects to a power supply and generates output signals; slave circuit connects to a sensor.
• 4: Plural contacts for power transfer and signal transmission; circuit has portions (13′) equal in number to, and oppositely positioned from, the contacts; four contacts — two power, two signal.
• 5: Contacts mounted via fastening means (12) with elastic means (13) biasing them to a forward position; each contact is longitudinally movable so its protruding portion can be pushed back into the body.
• 6: Circuit has externally accessible selectors (6) for setting module operation.
• 7: Projection(s) (14) on the first side and equal‑numbered complementary recess(es) (15) on the second side (or vice versa), in corresponding positions.
• 8: Substantially square section, sides about 40 mm, thickness about 10 mm.
• 10: Master + ≥1 slave in series, or first and second master modules with slave groups separated/interspaced by a master.
• 11: Power line defined by two contacts of each master plus downstream slaves' corresponding contacts; remaining contacts define signal‑transmission connections.
• 12: At least one closing and bracketing unit (16) with two end elements removably combined with the first master and last slave modules.
• 13: Square section allows mounting in a first position or one rotated 90° relative to the closing/bracketing unit.
• 14: Closing/bracketing unit has bracketing elements (18) fastened by fastening means (19) into supporting elements (20) of the automation device.

CAFC / USPTO docket check for 2026

No results found. Searches for "10962390" CAFC docket 2026, "US10962390" litigation OR IPR OR PTAB, and Gimatic litigation/appeal terms returned no CAFC 2026 docket entry, no PTAB proceeding, and no district‑court case naming this patent. A third‑party analytics page (ipverse.greyb.com, "Gimatic competitive analysis," dated Aug 6, 2026) reports Gimatic with 1 EPO opposition filed, 0 PTAB cases filed, 0 PTAB cases faced — consistent with there being no US post‑grant or appellate activity I could locate.

Explicit uncertainty: because I could not query USPTO Patent Center / PTAB P‑TACTS / CAFC CM‑ECF directly in this session, I cannot rule out recently filed or unindexed 2026 activity. I found no evidence of any CAFC 2026 appeal involving US 10,962,390, but "no search hit" is not proof of absence. The patent otherwise shows ordinary prosecution events: non‑final action 2020‑06‑10, notice of allowance 2020‑12‑09, grant 2021‑03‑10, and 4th‑year maintenance fee paid 2024‑08‑08.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10962390 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases and sources.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent 10,962,390

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation involving US 10,962,390.

What the patent is

US 10,962,390 B2 ("Module for a sensor box for industrial automation and respective sensor box") is assigned to Gimatic S.r.l. (Italy), inventor Giuseppe Bellandi. Application 16/160,020, priority IT 102017000116305 (Oct. 16, 2017), filed Oct. 15, 2018, granted Mar. 30, 2021, with an adjusted expiration of Feb. 24, 2039. It has a small family (JP 7320343, CN 109668585, DE 102018217260, IT 201700116305).

Searches performed

I searched for the exact patent number in combination with litigation-related terms ("10962390" + litigation / lawsuit / defendant / infringement complaint / docket), for Unified Patents portal coverage, and for the assignee (Gimatic) as a litigation party. None of these returned any case, docket, or party record tied to this patent.

Caveats — please read

• Negative results are not proof of absence. My searches did not surface a dedicated PACER or Docket Alarm / Unified Patents litigation record for this specific number, but I could not directly query those systems' full case databases or confirm "zero hits" with certainty. Some litigation databases are paywalled or not fully indexed by general web search.
• The patent is owned by a European industrial-automation supplier (Gimatic). There is no indication in the file history or public listing of any assignment to a litigation-oriented entity, which makes assertion campaigns less likely but does not rule out district-court or ITC activity that simply is not well indexed.
• I must not fabricate party names, case numbers, jurisdictions, or dates. Providing invented values here would be worse than reporting no results.

Recommendation for definitive confirmation

To conclusively verify, check these sources directly by patent number:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (also its per-patent page: portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10962390)
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — https://www.courtlistener.com (search "10,962,390" and "Gimatic")
3. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for any assignment or reexamination/PTAB activity
4. PTAB (PTAB Center) for any IPR/PGR filed against the patent

If any of these show a proceeding, please share the output and I'll characterize the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and status precisely.

If no litigation is known, say so: As of the sources and searches available to me, no litigation involving US 10,962,390 is known.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live web sources.

Let me run additional targeted searches to confirm.

Let me do a final verification search for any Federal Circuit or litigation activity.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,962,390: 0 (zero). There are no IPRs, no PGRs, and no CBM reviews — none active, none terminated, none with claims invalidated, none settled, and no institution denials (there was never a petition to deny). The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "the patent has survived and is hardened," but rather "the patent is entirely un-vetted at the PTAB": all 14 claims — independent claim 1, claims 2–8, independent claim 9, and claims 10–14 — are UNTESTED. Every claim of the patent remains presumptively valid under § 282 and none has been narrowed by any AIA final written decision.

Proceedings list

None to report. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal is the canonical list, and it returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. My independent web verification found no contrary evidence:

• Third-party PTAB analytics for the patent owner list no PTAB cases faced by Gimatic S.r.l. (empty "Latest PTAB cases" table; peer-comparison row shows dashes for both "PTAB Cases Filed" and "PTAB Cases Faced") — https://ipverse.greyb.com/competitive-analysis/company/gimatic-s.r.l.
• No IPR/PGR petition number, no Final Written Decision, and no PTAB appeal brief naming US 10,962,390 surfaced in searches.
• No Federal Circuit appeal, no CourtListener docket, and no district court complaint asserting this patent surfaced.

I will not manufacture a proceeding number, panel, or disposition to fill the template. The per-proceeding subsections (### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — …) are omitted because there is no proceeding to describe.

Caveat on confidence: the absence of PTAB proceedings is verified against the USPTO structured data and corroborated by secondary analytics, but a very recently filed petition (within the ~1–2 week lag before ODP ingest and public E2E posting) could theoretically exist without appearing in either source. If you have a specific petition number from opposing counsel or a client, tell me and I will pull it.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status. All claims are UNTESTED — not canceled, not sustained, not construed by the Board. Under the claim chart in the patent: claim 1 (module with containing body 3, electronic circuit 5, main electric contact 8 on first side 9, cable passage 7, opening 11 on opposite second side 10, circuit configurable as master or slave with identical containing bodies) is the broadest independent claim and is the one a defendant should treat as the primary target. Claim 9 (sensor box comprising ≥2 modules of claim 1, at least one master and one slave, connected in series, "all of the modules ... structurally identical to one another") is the apparatus-level independent claim. Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1; claims 10–14 depend from claim 9. Nothing has been narrowed, disclaimed, or canceled, so there is no "safe harbor" claim set and no dead claim you can use to moot a demand letter.

Estoppel landscape. No estoppel exists against anyone. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtains a final written decision; because no FWD has issued, no party is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground, and every ground remains available to a current defendant in district court or in a fresh IPR. Conversely, you get no free ride from someone else's work — no prior petitioner has burned down any art or locked in a Board claim construction you can borrow.

Available prior-art runway. The patent's face is relatively light on art (10–11 references cited), and the art of record is mostly power-metering/junction-box material (US 2015/0241480 to Schneider Electric; EP 2 635 877 B1 and US 2013/0314245 to Northern Design; US 2008/0284614 to Square D; GB 2503479; EP 0 726 631 A2 to Canalplast) plus a circuit-breaker and surge-protection references — none of which is a modular industrial sensor connection box. The more on-point foreign art appears only in the "Family Cites Families" list: JPH08130063 (connector for photosensor), JP3588705 (detection switch master unit / slave unit / system), JP3266198 (sensor system), JP4493084 (sensor system), DE102011110183 (modular control device), and EP2624378B1 (input/output assembly for industrial automation). A defendant's § 103 case will most plausibly be built on the master/slave modular sensor-connection art (JP3588705 / JP3266198 / JP4493084) combined with a modular backplane or plug-in I/O reference, attacking the "structurally identical master and slave containing bodies" limitation in claim 1 and the "all of the modules are structurally identical" limitation in claim 9.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed anything, let alone multiple IPRs. The patent owner (Gimatic S.r.l., acquired by Barnes Group Inc. on 2018-10-31 for €370M, now operating as a Barnes Industrial business unit) has never had a PTAB matter to appeal and has not pursued PTAB appeals. There is no defensive aggregator in the chain — no Unified Patents, no RPX challenge, no ex parte reexam filed by a third party that I could find. Gimatic's own offensive activity in the PTAB appears nil; its only visible contested proceeding is a European opposition filed by Gimatic against Camozzi Automation.

Diligence flag on the priority date. The patent's CROSS REFERENCE section states the application "claims priority to Italian Patent Application No. 10 2017 000116305, filed Oct. 16, 2018," while the ODP/Google record shows the priority application (IT102017000116305) filed 2017-10-16 and the US filing on 2018-10-15. The "2018" in the specification is almost certainly a typographical error, but it is worth a look: US 10,962,390 issued on 2021-03-30 and carries an adjusted expiration of 2039-02-24, and no intervening-art issue arises unless a defendant is holding § 102/§ 103 art dated between 2017-10-17 and 2018-10-15. If you are, the perfection of the foreign priority claim becomes a live § 119 issue.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say so plainly, and do not oversell it. There is no FWD to link to and no disposition to quote. Any statement to a client or court that claims were "invalidated" or "survived IPR" would be false. The patent stands with all 14 claims intact and unconstrued by the Board.
• Treat the absence as a weak-to-neutral signal, not a safe harbor. Well-asserted patents in crowded US markets eventually attract IPRs; the lack of any petition here is most likely explained by (a) a niche product category — modular sensor connection boxes for robot end-of-arm tooling — with few US targets, and (b) a patent owner that has historically enforced in Europe rather than the US (the one contested proceeding on the Gimatic side of the ledger is an opposition against Camozzi Automation at the EPO). It does not mean the claims are strong.
• If you have been served with a complaint asserting US 10,962,390, calendar the § 315(b) one-year bar immediately. The statutory deadline is one year from service of the complaint; after that, an IPR is time-barred. Separately, if a petition is filed, the Board's statutory deadlines run from institution: institution decision at ~6 months, patent owner response at 3 months post-institution, and the Final Written Decision due within 12 months of the institution date (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause.
• Run an invalidity search focused on the untested independent claims. Prioritize: (1) pre-2017 modular master/slave sensor-connection systems — start from JP3588705, JP3266198, JP4493084 and the art cited against them; (2) modular plug-together I/O and backplane systems (the "Similar Documents" set on the patent page includes US 5,472,347, US 5,541,810, US 7,581,053, US 10,261,486, US 11,347,195, KR 101734861 — these are examiner-similar, not cited, art and require their own prior-art dates); and (3) the "structurally identical master and slave module" concept, which is the narrowest and most attackable limitation because it is the stated point of novelty.
• Pre-position § 112 and § 119 attacks while you are at it. Claim 7 contains an apparent antecedent-basis drafting error — it recites "said at least one projection (14) having a shape and size complementary to a shape and size of said at least one projection (15)" — the second "projection" appears intended to be "recess." That is worth a § 112(b) indefiniteness look alongside the foreign-priority perfection issue noted above.

Sources relied on: Google Patents record for US10962390B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10962390/en) for all claim text, citation lists, and family-citation data; the USPTO ODP structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, returns zero proceedings); GreyB/IP Verse PTAB analytics for Gimatic S.r.l. (https://ipverse.greyb.com/competitive-analysis/company/gimatic-s.r.l.); Barnes Group Inc. acquisition press release, 2018-10-31 (https://s24.q4cdn.com/605164115/files/doc_news/archive/93406505-3212-4a33-a07e-12e033e685a5.pdf). I found no PTAB Final Written Decision, no PTAB E2E docket, and no CourtListener or Federal Circuit docket for this patent, so no opinion-specific links are offered.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 10,962,390.

Key finding emerging — let me verify the corporate context and check for any further recorded assignments.

Let me pin down the correspondent of record and confirm whether any later assignment exists.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 10,962,390 B2

Scope note / evidence base: The authoritative patent text provided (Google Patents legal-events block for US 16/160,020) shows exactly one recorded assignment. I could not open the Assignment Center cover sheet itself within this session's search budget, so wherever the record does not state something (notably the recorded correspondent), I say so rather than fill it in. Corporate-control changes below come from press/company sources and are flagged as not USPTO-recorded events — share deals do not generate assignment records when the target legal entity survives.

Inventors

• Bellandi co-founded Gimatic in 1985 (with Giuseppe Maffeis and Giuseppe Frassine per contemporaneous Italian trade press). He is the single inventor of record on the US application and on the versions of this family (IT 201700116305, DE 102018217260, CN 109668585, JP 7320343) — see the "Also Published As" set in the patent text.
• Unusual pattern (M&A-note, not troll-note): the sole inventor was simultaneously the seller in a pending change-of-control transaction. He executed the assignment of this invention to Gimatic on 2018-10-11, i.e. ~3 weeks after Barnes Group's acquisition agreement with Gimatic's shareholders was announced (Sept 20–21, 2018) and ~3 weeks before the deal closed (Nov 2, 2018). This is textbook pre-closing IP housekeeping — the founder had to be shown as having assigned his invention to the target before the shares transferred.
• Departure pattern: Bellandi's equity exit from Gimatic coincides with the Barnes closing (Nov 2, 2018), i.e. weeks after filing — but he was reported as joining the Barnes business at close (Barnes CEO Patrick Dempsey's deal quote: "add Gimatic and its founder, Giuseppe Bellandi, to Barnes Group"). By June 2022 he was acquiring a majority of the Autorotor group via Giulia Holding Srl — an exit to a new venture roughly 3.5 years post-filing, not a 12-month abandonment. No evidence of inventor-driven assignment-avoidance.

Original assignee

GIMATIC S.r.l., Roncadelle (Brescia), Italy — named as original assignee on the issued patent and listed as current assignee.

• Ships products embodying the claims: yes. Gimatic designs and manufactures robotic grippers, end-of-arm tooling (EOAT), vacuum cups, pneumatic cutters, expansion micro-grippers, and sensors — the exact subject matter of the patent. It reports 16+ subsidiaries and 180+ patents.
• Primary line of business: industrial automation / robotics components (mechatronic and pneumatic), serving automotive, packaging, pharma, food & beverage, electronics.
• Current status: operating. Ownership chain of the company (none of which appears as a patent assignment):
  • 2013 — Xenon Private Equity takes ~70%.
  • June 2016 — AGIC Capital (German/Chinese-backed PE) takes ~82%; Bellandi and Xenon retain ~9% each.
  • Nov 2, 2018 — Barnes Group Inc. (then NYSE: B) closes acquisition of 100% for €370M from Bellandi, AGIC and Xenon. Gimatic operates as a new strategic business in Barnes' Industrial segment.
  • Jan 27, 2025 — Apollo-managed funds complete the ~$3.6B take-private of Barnes Group; Barnes delisted from NYSE.
  • Oct 22, 2025 — Barnes separates into Barnes Aerospace and The Industrial Solutions Group; Gimatic/Automation sits in the ISG (Molding Solutions, Force & Motion Control, Automation).
  • Gimatic continues to file US patents in its own name (e.g. the March-11 issuance of US 12,246,437, "Industrial manipulator gripper provided with sensor…", assigned to GIMATIC S.R.L.), confirming the entity remains live and is the record owner rather than a shell.

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment exists on the US record. Per the legal-events block of US 10,962,390:

• 2018-10-11 (executed) / recorded 2018-10-15 — Reel 047167 / Frame 0132
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BELLANDI, GIUSEPPE (individual)
  • Assignee: GIMATIC S.R.L. (Italy)
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the provided record. The Google Patents legal-events entry (REEL/FRAME:047167/0132) discloses assignor, assignee, execution date and recording date but not the recorded correspondent text, and I could not retrieve the Assignment Center cover sheet in this session. I therefore decline to name an attorney or firm. Proxy only, explicitly flagged as not the USPTO-recorded correspondent: the German sibling application DE 102018217260 names RAU, SCHNECK & HÜBNER Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB (Nürnberg, DE) as its agent — that is DE prosecution counsel, not a USPTO assignment correspondent, and should not be recorded as such. Repeat-correspondent analysis is impossible on a one-link chain regardless.
  • Context: Pre-closing internal IP housekeeping tied to the Barnes/AGIC/Xenon sale of Gimatic — the founder-inventor assigns his invention to the target company contemporaneously with the US national filing (both dated Oct 15, 2018).
• No post-issuance assignment of any kind is recorded — no transfer to Barnes Group Inc., no security agreement tied to Barnes' acquisition financing, no transfer to a licensing entity. Corporate-parent changes (2018, 2025, 2025 separation) did not require, and did not produce, an assignment because Gimatic S.r.l. survived as the same legal entity.
• Fee/case corroboration (not assignments): legal events show UNDISCOUNTED / LARGE ENTITY status at filing (2018-10-15) and the 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-08-08 (large entity) — consistent with institutional ownership and active maintenance, not abandonment or a distressed docket.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10962390
    1985 : Gimatic founded by Giuseppe Bellandi
    2013 : Xenon takes 70 pct of Gimatic
    2016 : AGIC Capital takes 82 pct of Gimatic
    2017 : Italian priority application filed
    2018 : Bellandi assigns invention to Gimatic
         : Barnes agrees to buy Gimatic
         : US application 16 160 020 filed
         : Barnes closes 370m euro deal
    2021 : US 10962390 granted
    2025 : Apollo takes Barnes private
         : Barnes splits into Aerospace and ISG

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Sole recorded assignment (Reel 047167/0132, 2018-10-15) runs inbound: individual inventor → operating manufacturer. Current record owner is Gimatic S.r.l., Roncadelle (Brescia), a manufacturer with a 40-year history, ~240 employees, 16+ subsidiaries and product lines covering the claimed sensor-box subject matter. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the chain.
2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Gimatic nor any corporate parent (Xenon, AGIC, Barnes Group, Apollo funds, The Industrial Solutions Group) matches any public NPE/asserter directory entry (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Spangenberg entities, etc.). Barnes was an NYSE-listed operating industrial; Apollo is a PE sponsor, not an assertion vehicle.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ASSESSABLE. The chain has one link, and the recorded correspondent is not exposed in the provided record. A single link cannot establish recurrence, and one attorney appearance would not be a finding in any event. Restated as a limitation, not a clean negative.
4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One assignment in 2018 and none in the ~8 subsequent years (grant 2021-03-30). No chained LLCs, no shared-address transfers, no <24-month cascade.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignment is dated 2018-10-11, years before any conceivable suit, and no litigation naming this patent is known (consistent with the earlier litigation section of this analysis). Nothing in the chain resembles venue-setting or standing-cleaning transfers.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. The opposite: Gimatic was sold in a competitive, solvent PE-sponsored process at €370M (2018), and Barnes was taken private by Apollo in a solvent all-cash $3.6B deal (closed 2025-01-27). No Chapter 7/11 sale of these assets is in the record.
7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer, and no SEC/press disclosure of an assertion program on Gimatic's behalf by any third party.
8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN; title stays with the operating subsidiary.

Discrepancy flag (patent text vs. docket record): the granted specification's cross-reference recites the priority Italian application as "filed Oct. 16, 2018," whereas the INPADOC/Google Patents record and the application number format (IT 102017000116305) both indicate Oct. 16, 2017 — an obvious internal typo in the patent, noted rather than silently corrected, per the instruction to read identifiers literally. This has no bearing on ownership. Likewise, the listed adjusted expiration of 2039-02-24 (vs. a nominal 2038-10-15 twenty-year term from the 2018-10-15 filing) implies roughly 132 days of patent term adjustment; it also implies the chain will be reviewable for maintenance-fee continuity through at least the 12-year stage (2026–2027).

Verdict

Insufficient data — as defined by this rubric: only the original inventor-to-company assignment is recorded (Reel 047167/0132, executed 2018-10-11, recorded 2018-10-15), and no post-issuance conveyance exists to analyze for NPE structuring. Used here deliberately, because no other category fits: it is not an "NPE" of any confidence level (zero NPE signals, and the owner is a product-shipping manufacturer inside Barnes/Apollo's Industrial Solutions Group that still files its own patents), and it is not "operating-company assertion" (no known litigation, so no assertion to characterize) nor "defensive / non-asserting" (the chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator). The practical takeaway is a clean operating-company hold: title has never left the Gimatic entity, control changes were share-level M&A (AGIC 2016 → Barnes Nov 2018 → Apollo Jan 2025 → ISG separation Oct 2025), and the patent is being actively maintained as a large entity with its 4th-year fee paid 2024-08-08.

Verify directly (the one open item is the correspondent text on Reel 047167/0132):

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10,962,390 or reel 047167 frame 0132); legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• USPTO Patent Center for application 16/160,020 (full assignment cover sheet incl. correspondent of record) — https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
• PTAB / Unified Patents litigation portal for any proceeding: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10962390

If the cover sheet for Reel 047167/0132 shows a correspondent, send it over and I will complete signal #3 (repeat-correspondent) and confirm whether the recording agent is a repeat player in the Gimatic/Barnes patent family.

I'll research each cited reference to build the prior-art analysis. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me research the remaining references and confirm details of key ones.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,962,390 B2

Scope, sources, and caveats

• Authoritative patent text: The full text supplied for US 10,962,390 B2 (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10962390/en) is treated as the USPTO record here. All patent numbers are quoted literally as they appear in that record; I have not normalized or "corrected" any of them.
• What this patent is: US 10,962,390 B2, "Module for a sensor box for industrial automation and respective sensor box," Gimatic S.r.l., inventor Giuseppe Bellandi, App. 16/160,020, filed 2018-10-15, granted 2021-03-30. Independent claim 1 covers a module; independent claim 9 covers a sensor box comprising at least two such modules.
• Flagged inconsistency (carried over from the earlier section): The front page lists the priority date as 2017-10-16 (IT 102017000116305), but the CROSS REFERENCE paragraph states priority to "Italian Patent Application No. 10 2017 000116305, filed Oct. 16, 2018." These conflict. Per the earlier litigation section and the front-page data, the operative priority date used below is 2017-10-16. I am flagging, not silently correcting, the discrepancy.
• Search-budget limitation: I retrieved and verified substantive text for several references (Reid '062, Square D '614, Circuit Breaker Industries '605, and the file's own description of Northern Design/Schneider/Meter references). For a handful of the Japanese-language family cites and some metering references I could not pull full claim text within the available search budget. Where that is the case I say so explicitly rather than inventing content. No party names, dates, or technical content have been fabricated.

The critical legal point driving this analysis

This patent was granted over a citation set that is almost entirely drawn from the electric power-metering / power-monitoring field, not the industrial-automation sensor-box field. The applicant's own Background expressly surveys these references and distinguishes them:

"There are also devices comprising several modules arranged in series or in parallel to measure and/or monitor consumption, in particular power consumption." (Background, discussing US2015/0241480 A1; EP 2 635 877 B1; US 2008/0284614 A1; GB 2503479; EP 0 726 631 A2)

Consequently, most of these documents are weak §102 anticipation candidates and are far better understood as §103 obviousness art (i.e., they teach "modularity + plug-in stacked modules with inter-module connectors," which the examiner could combine). The single limitation that defeats a clean §102 reading of claim 1 by nearly every one of these references is the final element of claim 1:

"…wherein said electronic circuit is configured as a master module or a slave module of a sensor box with master and slave modules having identical containing bodies." (claim 1, emphasis added)

For a reference to anticipate claim 1 under §102, a single prior-art document must disclose every element, including two module types that are functionally distinguishable (master vs. slave) yet have structurally identical containing bodies, plus the specific contact-to-opening positional correspondence. My assessment below is that none of the cited references discloses that full combination, so no cited reference is a clean single-reference §102 anticipation of claims 1 or 9 as issued. I identify below, for each reference, which claim elements it does reach.

Complete citation set (from US 10,962,390 B2)

"Patent Citations (11)" — cited by the examiner

"Family Cites Families (8)" — cited by the examiner in the family

Prior-art status: Every item above published (or granted/published) before 2017-10-16, so each qualifies as prior art under §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) for printed publications.

Reference-by-reference analysis

1. EP 0 726 631 A2 — CANALPLAST S.r.l. (pub. 1996-08-14)

Description: A floor junction box having a box-like body with openings for cables to pass through, to house electrical/telephone/EDP equipment (per the patent's own Background description).
Relevance: Reaches only the "containing body … equipped with at least one passage … for a respective connecting cable" element of claim 1 (passage 7). It discloses no main electric contact emerging from a first side positioned to correspond to an opening on the opposite side, and no master/slave module concept.
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate claim 1 or claim 9. At most a secondary reference showing a conventional cable-passage in a junction/sensor-box housing. Its inclusion is best explained as generic context.

2. US 6,278,605 B1 — Circuit Breaker Industries Ltd. (granted 2001-08-21) — closest structural reference

Description (verified): A modular system of modules mounted side-by-side. Rigid metallic conductors (threaded rods 40) extend transversely through apertures (38/44) in the abutting side faces of adjacent modules and engage plated contact pads through which they are fastened; a base/"start" module 12 contains a control/communication circuit and a circuit breaker, intermediate modules 26 (e.g., kWh meters) each carry a communication circuit, and the modules communicate over the conductor-defined bus. A third "end"/"cover" module 76 closes off the last module's exposed contacts; apertures 68/70 permit a security seal.
Mapping to the claims: It discloses (a) a containing body with a circuit, (b) a conductor emerging from one side and passing into an aperture on the abutting opposite side of the next module, (c) an end/cover element (compare claim 12's closing/bracketing unit), and (d) different modules performing master-like and slave-like roles communicating over an internal conductor bus (compare claims 9–11).
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate claim 1. The decisive failure is the "master and slave modules having identical containing bodies" limitation — in '605 the base module 12 and the intermediate module 26 have different widths/housings (12 is a triple-width housing; 26 is one-third width). The relationship is functional host/expansion, not two structurally identical module types. It is, however, the most useful §103 reference for the "movable/emergent contact that penetrates an aperture of the adjacent module and mates with a contact pad" concept (claims 1, 5, 9).

3. US 2001/0043062 A1 — Reid (Square D) (pub. 2001-11-22)

Description (verified): A modular sensor array (current/voltage sensors, memory device DS2430A), a metering module, and a mounting/connection base. The metering module has an integral prewired connector 33 that mates with a complementary connector 23/73 on the sensor array or base, and physically mounts into a complementary recess 27/77, establishing simultaneous mechanical and electrical coupling; mounting projections 76 permit DIN-rail mounting.
Mapping: Reaches the concepts of a housing, an internal circuit, a mating connector establishing mechanical+electrical coupling between stacked units, and rail bracketing (roughly claims 1 and 12/14 elements).
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate claims 1 or 9 — no emergent contact positioned opposite an opening in a corresponding position, and no identical-body master/slave pairing. This is a §103-type reference for modular mating/rail-mount ideas.

4. US 2008/0284614 A1 — Square D Company (pub. 2008-11-20)

Description (verified): A power-monitoring system with a meter base and multiple option modules. The meter base housing has a first surface (DIN-rail mountable) and a second surface containing multiple connectors; each option module has a complementary connector so that any option module can be plugged into any connector of the meter base. One configuration mounts option modules on the DIN rail and stacks them on the end of the meter base via pass-through or backplane connectors. Housings have horizontal dimensions that are integer multiples of a common dimension.
Mapping: Reaches modular plug-in expansion, common backplane/connectors, and rail mounting. The "integer-multiple common dimension" idea touches the standardized module size concept behind claim 8 ("sides of about 40 mm").
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate claims 1 or 9. No emergent-contact-to-opening correspondence and no identical master/slave bodies; it is host-plus-option-module art. §103 reference (modularity/standard-size modules).

5. US 2013/0314245 A1 and 6. EP 2 635 877 B1 — Northern Design (Electronics) Ltd.

Description (from the patent's own Background, which characterizes EP 2 635 877 B1): A modular measuring system with at least one slave module that measures a parameter (power, gas, water, etc.) and a master module that electronically communicates with the slave module (wirelessly or via a communication module). The master polls the slave modules and may include a processor, memory, data logger and user interface. US 2013/0314245 A1 is the corresponding/parent modular metering system publication.
Mapping: This is the only group in the citation set that uses explicit "master module / slave module" architecture with polling — directly analogous to the functional master/slave clustering recited in claims 9–11 of '390 and described in the specification ("the master module is arranged to poll the slave modules").
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate claims 1 or 9, because (i) it is a metering/telemetry system in a different field, and (ii) it discloses no emergent main electric contact positioned to correspond to an opening on the opposite housing side, and no structurally identical master/slave containing bodies. It is nonetheless the best §103 reference for the master/slave grouping-and-polling concept (claims 9–11).

7. GB 2503479 A — Smart Innovations Grid (pub. 2014-01-01)

Description (from the patent's Background): A telemetry device for a consumption unit having at least one input to receive electric power data (e.g., from a meter) and at least one output channel to transmit data (e.g., wirelessly to a remote server).
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate any claim of '390; it concerns data I/O for a telemetry consumer unit, not a stackable sensor-box module. Background-only.

8. US 2015/0241480 A1 — Schneider Electric USA (pub. 2015-08-27)

Description (from the patent's Background): A power meter "designed to receive rear and side expansion modules"; the meter is provided with a rear opening and a side opening to receive a connector of an expansion module.
Mapping: Structurally relevant to claim 1's "at least one opening (11) on a second side (10) … opposite to said first side (9)" and to a housing that accepts a connector of a further module. This is the reference whose geometry most directly resembles the "contact-in / opening-out on opposite faces" idea.
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate claim 1 or 9 absent (i) the emergent main contact on the first side positioned to correspond to the opening, and (ii) the identical-body master/slave pairing. Strong §103 reference on the opening/expansion geometry.

9. US 2008/0238713 A1 — Electro Industries/Gauge Tech (pub. 2008-10-02)

Description: An electronic meter integrating user-interface and central processing functionality onto a single printed circuit board (title-level characterization only; I did not retrieve full claim text).
§102 verdict: On the available information this does not anticipate claims 1 or 9; it is single-board electronic-meter art. Treated as background. Confidence: moderate — full text not independently retrieved.

10. US 2012/0206848 A1 — Phoenix Contact Development & Manufacturing (pub. 2012-08-16)

Description: A pluggable surge-protection system (pluggable module into a base).
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate claims 1 or 9; at most background on plug-in module/base architecture. Confidence: moderate (title-level).

11. US 2015/0316944 A1 — Michel Raymond Thellend (pub. 2015-11-05)

Description: A smart electrical panel enclosure.
§102 verdict: Does not anticipate any claim of '390; panel-enclosure art, background only.

Family quotes (cited by examiner in family members)

• F1 JP S61-38778 U (terminal board, pub. 1986-03-11) — background on terminal boards; no anticipation of claims 1/9.
• F2 JP H08-130063 A (connector for photosensor, pub. 1996-05-21) — relevant to the sensor-connector aspect (claim 1's cable passage/sensor connection), but connector-only; no anticipation.
• F3 JP 3588705 B2 — Keyence (Detection switch master unit, detection switch slave unit and detection switch system, pub. 2004-11-17) — most on-point family reference for subject matter. It discloses a master unit and slave units in a detection-switch/sensor system — i.e., the master/slave sensor architecture claimed in claims 9–11 of '390. Likely §103 art for the master/slave sensor-grouping concept; a §102 anticipation would still require the identical-body module structure, which a detection-switch system of this vintage does not show. Confidence: moderate (full claim text not retrieved).
• F4 JP 3266198 B2 — Omron (Sensor system, pub. 2002-03-18) and F5 JP 4493084 B2 — Sunx (Sensor system, pub. 2010-06-30) — sensor-system references closest in field to a sensor box; likely §103 art on networked/multi-sensor architectures. No identified single-reference anticipation.
• F6 DE 10 2011 110 183 B3 — Pilz (Modular control device, pub. 2012-11-15) — modular automation control device; §103 art on modular controllers, not a sensor box per se.
• F7 EP 2 624 378 B1 — Siemens (Input/output assembly for industrial automation technology, pub. 2015-03-04) — modular I/O assembly in automation; §103 art for modular stackable automation hardware.
• F8 JP 6144235 B2 — Iriso Electronics (Connector terminals and electrical connectors, pub. 2017-06-07) — connector-terminal structure; §103 art bearing on the resilient/emergent contact element (claim 5) and connectors (claims 1, 9).

Synthesis — which claims are most exposed, and by what art

• Claims 1 and 9 (independent): No cited reference discloses the full combination, and specifically none discloses "master and slave modules having identical containing bodies." This limitation is the linchpin of patentability. No §102 anticipation by any single cited reference.
• The strongest §103 combination would be: US 6,278,605 B1 (emergent transverse conductor through an abutting-side aperture into a contact pad; end/cover module) + US 2015/0241480 A1 (rear-and-side opening geometry for expansion connectors) + Northern Design EP 2 635 877 B1 / US 2013/0314245 A1 (master/slave modular architecture with polling), optionally + US 2008/0284614 A1 (plug-into-any-connector modularity and standardized housing size). Such a combination could be asserted against claims 1, 5, 9–11, with JP 3588705 B2 (Keyence) reinforcing the master/slave sensor concept in the sensor (rather than metering) field.
• Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 (dependent structural/configurational features — opening-to-contact correspondence; master connected to power and generating outputs / slave connected to a sensor; four contacts, two power + two signal; complementary projection/recess; ~40 mm × 10 mm square module) are not anticipated by any single cited reference, but each individual feature has analogous structure in the modular-metering/housing art (notably US 2008/0284614 A1 for standardized housing dimensions; US 2001/0043062 A1 and US 2008/0284614 A1 for mating connectors).
• Claims 10–14 (sensor-box architecture with one or more masters interspersed among slaves; power line + signal lines; separate closing/bracketing unit; 90° mounting; bracket fastening to support bars) — not anticipated by any single reference; the closest single documents are Circuit Breaker Industries '605 (end/cover module ≈ closing unit; rail/bracket structure) and Northern Design (master/slave grouping).

Bottom line

1. Search scope honored: Patent number 10962390 was queried as given; no similar-number substitutions were used.
2. Every citation in US 10,962,390 B2 qualifies as prior art by date (all published on or before 2016-12-21, before the 2017-10-16 priority date).
3. No cited reference anticipates claim 1 or claim 9 under §102 as issued, because none discloses the combination of (a) an emergent main electric contact positioned to correspond to an opening on the opposite side and (b) an electronic circuit selectively defining a master or slave module with identical containing bodies for master and slave. The citations are best characterized as §103 obviousness art, predominantly from the adjacent power-metering field.
4. Most dangerous references in a validity challenge: US 6,278,605 B1 (conductor-through-aperture-to-contact-pad + end module), US 2015/0241480 A1 (rear/side opening expansion geometry), EP 2 635 877 B1 / US 2013/0314245 A1 (master/slave modular polling), and, for subject-matter proximity, JP 3588705 B2 (Keyence detection-switch master/slave system).
5. Confidence note: Full claim text was independently retrieved for US 6,278,605 B1, US 2001/0043062 A1, and US 2008/0284614 A1, and taken from the patent's own Background for EP 0 726 631 A2, EP 2 635 877 B1, GB 2503479 A, and US 2015/0241480 A1. The remaining references (especially the Japanese family cites and US 2008/0238713 A1 / US 2012/0206848 A1 / US 2015/0316944 A1) were assessed at title/abstract level; a definitive §102 call on those would require pulling their full claims from the USPTO/JPO/J-PlatPat and EPO registers, which I recommend before relying on any conclusion as to them.

I'll ground the key prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,962,390 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analysis date: April 26, 2026
Patent: US 10,962,390 B2 — "Module for a sensor box for industrial automation and respective sensor box" (Gimatic S.r.l.; app. 16/160,020; filed 2018‑10‑15; priority IT 102017000116305, 2017‑10‑16)
Prior art base: the references listed on the patent page under "Citations (10)", "Patent Citations (11)" and "Family Cites Families (8)" — i.e., the prior art of record for this family.

This builds on the earlier sections (claim set, prosecution history, no known litigation). I do not repeat the claim text; I chart it.

1. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) — scope/content of the prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; objective evidence.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results"; "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."
• MPEP 2144.04 (design choice / changes in shape, size, proportions, material) and MPEP 2145 (design need or market pressure; predictable solutions).

POSITA (assumed, not on the record): a mechanical/electrical design engineer with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and roughly 3–5 years designing industrial sensor-connection hardware for automation — familiar with modular DIN-rail devices, M8/M12 sensor connectors, sensor/actuator connection boxes, and spring-loaded (pogo-type) contact design.

Preliminary: no single-reference § 102 rejection is apparent. None of the listed references, as far as I can verify, discloses in one document (i) a module body with a cable passage to its interior, (ii) a contact emerging from one face aligned with an opening in the opposite face, and (iii) master/slave modules sharing an identical containing body. The case is therefore a § 103 combination case. Caveat: I have only titles/keywords for JP 3588705 B2, JP 3266198 B2, JP 4493084 B2, DE 102011110183 B3, EP 2624378 B1, JP 6144235 B2, JP H08130063 A, JP S6138778 U — full texts were not retrievable in this session, so a § 102 rejection grounded on one of those (particularly JP 3588705 B2) cannot be excluded, only said to be unverified.

2. The prior art references that matter, and what they actually supply

3. Claim 1 — element chart and the three strongest combinations

3.1 Element chart

3.2 Combination A (primary): CBI + Northern Design + Schneider

Structure: CBI supplies the housing/contact/opening/correspondence architecture and the end-cover module; Northern Design supplies the master/slave architecture, the internal power-and-data bus carried through the module-to-module junction, and the reconfigurable snap-fit stack; Schneider supplies the express teaching that a single housing may carry grouped openings of the same dimensions so that one module type plugs into either position, and that the assembly may be turned 90° for mounting.

Motivation, stated in the references themselves (not hindsight):

1. CBI: "The described arrangement of the conductor components allows the various modules to be interconnected relatively quickly and easily, in a mechanically secure and reliable manner, without there being live electrical conductors exposed when not required."
2. CBI: "It will be appreciated that in some cases, only one transversely extending electrical conductor or bus may be required in a modular system, but two or more such busses can readily be provided." → reason to add a second/third rail = signal conductor alongside power (claim 4).
3. CBI: base module "could include a modem or other communication means, while an associated intermediate module could comprise a kWh meter," with both modules sharing "the same profile … viewed from the side" → a direct reason to put different electronics in a common body.
4. Northern Design: "The slave modules are preferably arranged for releasable physical engagement with the master module and/or other slave modules. In a preferred arrangement the physical engagement of modules automatically connects a data and/or power bus between them" → reason to route power and signal through the mating faces rather than by discrete cabling.
5. Northern Design: master "acts as the main auxiliary power supply for the entire system" → reason for the claimed power-line contacts.
6. Schneider: "the side opening and the rear opening can have the same dimensions" and "In both configurations, both … openings … are present in the housing" → explicit reason to provide a universal housing with openings dimensioned for the same mating module (which also rebuts a teaching-away argument — see §6).

3.3 Combination B (primary): Reid + Schneider + Northern Design

Structure: Reid is the closest sensor-context modular array (a sensing module housing with an interfitting removable module, alignment projections, a connector readied for a mating module, and openings in the housing); Schneider supplies the opposite-face opening aligned to the same module type and the 90° mounting; Northern Design supplies master/slave grouping, the internal bus, and the master-as-power-source function.

Motivation: Reid expressly frames the problem as needing "access to a variety of different sensor elements, various metering devices and different types of connectors" for each installation — i.e., inventory variety is the stated problem, which is exactly the problem the '390 patent asserts it solves. A POSITA optimizing Reid's array would be led to a common housing and a common mating interface across the module line.

3.4 Combination C (primary): JP 3588705 B2 + EP 2 635 877 + CBI

Structure: JP 3588705 B2 — pre-dating the priority date by ~22 years — is on its face directed to exactly the claimed architecture at the system level: a detection switch master unit, a detection switch slave unit, and a detection switch system. EP 2 635 877 supplies the snap-together master/slave stack with an automatic internal power/data bus; CBI supplies the physical male-contact-through-aperture-into-aligned-opening-perforation coupling and the closing end module.

Motivation: combining a master/slave detection-switch architecture with a side-by-side docking scheme already used in the same DIN-rail modular-device field is the predictable use of known elements for their established functions (KSR). This combination is, in my view, the most dangerous single combination — and it is also the one I cannot fully verify, because only the title of JP 3588705 B2 was retrievable.

3.5 The "identical containing bodies" limitation — why it does not save claim 1

The specification itself concedes the point: master and slave modules are "identical to each other except for the electronic circuit," and the asserted benefit is "simplifying the warehouse, which will not have to provide different components to obtain modules of different types." That is a part-count/inventory and manufacturing rationale, not a technical effect.

• Under KSR, "the mere duplication of parts" and the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results are within the ordinary skill; the enumerated "design incentives" in MPEP 2145 include exactly the part-commonization/market-pressure rationale the specification recites.
• Under MPEP 2144.04, choosing a common housing configuration (rather than two moulds) and choosing module dimensions (claim 8: ~40 mm × ~10 mm) is a design choice, absent evidence of criticality.
• Claim 1 recites the master/slave configuration in the alternative ("or"). Under MPEP 2131.02, an alternative ("Markush"-type) recitation is met by disclosure of a single species. So the claim is met by showing either a master-configured module or a slave-configured module having the recited housing, coupled with the identical-body relationship. The claim does not require that a single physical module be convertible in the field.

Conclusion on claim 1: a prima facie § 103 rejection is sustainable over A, B, or C, with A and C being the strongest. The pivot is (a) whether the Board/examiner accepts CBI's rods-through-side-apertures as the claimed "main electric contact emerging from the first side … corresponding to an opening on the second side," and (b) whether the identical-body relationship is treated as a design choice. I assess (a) as strong on the merits and (b) as favorable to the challenger.

4. Dependent claims 2–8

5. Independent claim 9 and claims 10–14 (the sensor box)

• Claim 9 adds: ≥2 modules; one master, one slave; series connection from a first master to a last slave; contact of a given module cooperating with the opening of the following module; all modules structurally identical.
  • EP 2 635 877 / US 2013/0314245 supply the master-to-last-slave serial stack, releasable engagement, automatic bus connection on engagement, and "the unit can have more modules or fewer" expansion.
  • CBI supplies the contact-through-aperture-into-aligned-opening cooperation verbatim in substance, plus the terminating "end"/cover module for the exposed last side.
  • The "structurally identical" limitation is the same design-choice argument as §3.5, and CBI's own modules "have the same profile … viewed from the side" despite carrying different electronics.
• Claim 10 (multiple masters interspaced among slave groups) — Northern Design's separate communications module 16 inserted into the chain plus its field-reconfigurability ("slaves can be moved from engagement with one master module to another"), and the patent's own FIG. 8, which merely illustrates re-arranging the same modules.
• Claim 11 (two master contacts + downstream slave contacts define the power line; remaining contacts define signal transmission connections) — EP 0 897 605 B1 [0018] (reference/common conductor + signal conductor), CBI (plural buses "can readily be provided"), Northern Design (internal power and data bus).
• Claim 12 (closing and bracketing unit with two end elements) — CBI's third module 76, "an 'end' or 'cover' module … which is essentially a moulded plate which fits onto the exposed side of the last intermediate module 26, preventing access to the electrical contacts in the side thereof."
• Claim 13 (square section; module mountable in a first position or rotated 90° relative to the closing/bracketing unit) — US 2015/0241480 A1 is nearly on all fours: the expansion module "can be rotated in two directions about two different axes to switch between being connected to the first side and to the rear," and the base unit "must be rotated on its side 90 degrees" for DIN-rail compatibility. Strong.
• Claim 14 (bracketing elements fastened into supporting elements of the automation device) — CBI's rail clips 24 (Minirail/DIN), Northern Design's DIN-rail clip 22, Schneider's DIN slot 220. The patent frames this as avoiding "additional fastening brackets," a pure convenience argument.

6. Anticipated counter-arguments and how they fare

Teaching away. Schneider discloses two housing variants (a first housing with a back opening; a second with a side opening) and a method of selecting between them. A patentee might argue this teaches away from a single universal housing. That argument fails on Schneider's own text: the reference states that in both configurations both the rear and side openings are present in the housing, and that the two openings can "have the same dimensions" and house "the same type" of connector. That is a teaching toward a common housing with grouped openings.

"Different field" (§ 103 obviousness requires analogous art). EP 2 635 877 and US 2015/0241480 A1 are electricity-metering devices. They are nonetheless analogous: (i) same problem (modular, reconfigurable, low-inventory industrial instrumentation wired into automation/electrical panels), and (ii) the patent itself cites them as the closest art in its own Background, which forecloses a non-analogous-art argument. Additionally, JP 3588705 B2 is squarely in the same field (detection switches / sensors) at the master-slave-unit level.

"Unexpected results" / objective evidence. None is on the record that I could locate. The asserted advantages are (a) reduced bulk (a dimensional optimization), (b) one part number for master and slave (inventory/manufacturing), and (c) no separate mounting brackets (convenience). None is the kind of result that would rebut a prima facie case, and no nexus evidence (e.g., commercial success attributable to the identical-housing feature specifically, licensing, copied-by-others) appears in the material available to me. Gimatic's commercial position in EOAT is well known, but I found no evidence tying it to this claim feature.

Weakest links in the rejection (be candid).

1. Claim 5's elastic, forward/backward-movable contacts are not squarely taught by the listed references. This claim, and only this claim, has a real chance of surviving the listed-art-only combination on the current record.
2. Claim 6's external selectors are supported only at title level within the listed set.
3. CBI's rods are screwed, not "emerging" contacts in the patent's sense; a patentee will argue CBI's bores/apertures are not the claimed "opening … on a second side opposite the first side" but rather a transverse conductor conduit. This is a genuine claim-construction fight, but Schneider's same-dimension rear/side openings blunt it.
4. Standard-essential caveat: I could not verify the complete text of JP 3588705 B2. Its title alone — master unit, slave unit, and system for detection switches — is the single most on-point title in the whole set, and if its disclosure shows a common housing form factor, claim 1 falls to it combined with CBI and the rejection becomes close to unassailable. This reference should be translated and read before finalizing any opinion.
5. Family-level datum worth noting: the eight Japanese/European references were cited in this family, yet JP 7320343 B2 still granted. That is weak evidence that at least one examiner (JPO) regarded that particular set as insufficient, and it will be cited by the patentee — but it carries no estoppel in the USPTO and is not probative of what a POSITA would have found obvious.

7. Bottom line

• Claim 1: obvious under § 103 over (A) US 6,278,605 + EP 2 635 877 + US 2015/0241480; (B) US 2001/0043062 + US 2015/0241480 + EP 2 635 877; or (C) JP 3588705 B2 + EP 2 635 877 + US 6,278,605. The structural coupling limitation is met by CBI; the master/slave and internal-bus limitations by Northern Design; the paired-opening/positional-correspondence and 90°-mounting limitations by Schneider; and the "identical containing bodies" limitation by the part-commonization teaching of CBI, the master/slave-unit teaching of JP 3588705 B2, and design-choice law.
• Claim 9: obvious over the same combinations, the "cooperating with the opening of the following module" and "structurally identical" limitations being supplied by CBI and by design choice respectively.
• Claims 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14: the strongest obviousness positions — claim 13 in particular is essentially taught by US 2015/0241480 A1 alone.
• Claims 3, 7, 10: solidly obvious on the listed art.
• Claims 5 and 6: the residual vulnerability of this patent. A challenger should supplement the listed art with spring-loaded / plug-in contact art (e.g., US 2012/0206848 A1, JP 6144235 B2, JP H08130063 A) and with typical externally accessible selector/switch art, or rely on Official Notice, to reach these.

Explicit limitations of this analysis

I have quoted only text I actually retrieved (CBI/US 6,278,605 and EP 0 897 605 B1; Northern Design EP 2 635 877 / US 2013/0314245; Schneider US 2015/0241480; Reid US 2001/0043062). For JP 3588705 B2, JP 3266198 B2, JP 4493084 B2, DE 102011110183 B3, EP 2624378 B1, JP 6144235 B2, JP H08130063 A, JP S6138778 U, US 2012/0206848 A1, US 2008/0284614 A1, US 2008/0238713 A1, US 2015/0316944 A1 and GB 2503479 A I relied on titles, abstracts and the patent's own characterizations; no claim chart resting on one of those should be treated as final. I did not review the prosecution history file wrapper (e.g., the 2020‑06‑10 non‑final action and applicant's remarks distinguishing EP 2 635 877), which could contain examiner reasoning and applicant arguments that materially shape the rejection — that document should be obtained from Patent Center before any formal opinion is issued.