DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections are not persuasive because the terminal disclaimers were not all approved.
With respect to the newly added claim 1 limitations, these arguments are not persuasive because Kazuma teaches all of the newly added claim limitations.
With respect to new claim 16, the claim language appears to be further limiting the newly added claim 1 limitation and is directed to more structure shown in figure 12, however, the claim language is broad enough to still apply to the structure shown by Kazama. Annotated figure 2 showing the claimed surfaces and steps is included with claim 16 rejection below. This structure is also disclosed in previously cited reference US 8130064 not used in the rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11640889, U.S. Patent No. 11735389, and U.S. Patent No. 11640890 in view of Kazuma (US 3099730). In re claim 1, claims 1 of the patents cover the scope of all of the claimed limitations except for the newly added limitations including a base supporting the drive device, the base slidably supporting the insulating member, a direction in which the drive device is arranged with respect to the base being defined as upward, the insulating member being supported by the base in a vertical direction, and the insulating member being configured to move in a direction that intersects the vertical direction by the drive device, the fixed terminal protruding downward from the base to an outside of the housing, and the first-fourth flat surfaces with associated steps. Kazuma however teaches a similar device having a base supporting the drive device, the base slidably supporting the insulating member, a direction in which the drive device is arranged with respect to the base being defined as upward, the insulating member (4) being supported by the base in a vertical direction, and the insulating member being configured to move in a direction that intersects the vertical direction by the drive device, and the fixed terminal protruding downward from the base to an outside of the housing, and the first-fourth flat surfaces with associated steps (as best seen in figure 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have positioned the base of the device of the patents in the claimed orientation as taught by Kazama in order to reduce the device height in the vertical direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kazuma (US 3099730).
In re claim 1, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses a relay comprising: a first fixed terminal; a first fixed contact connected to the first fixed terminal; a second fixed terminal; a second fixed contact connected to the second fixed terminal (terminals 10 and contacts 11); a first movable contact piece (8) configured to move in a moving direction; a first movable contact that faces the first fixed contact, the first movable contact being connected to the first movable contact piece; a second movable contact that faces the second fixed contact, the second movable contact being connected to the first movable contact piece (movable contacts 7); an insulating member (4; it is inherently insulating because contacts and core would have a short circuit without insulation) connected to the first movable contact piece; a drive device including a spool, a coil (2) wound around the spool, and a movable iron core (3) at least partially disposed in the spool and connected to the insulating member, the drive device being configured to move the movable iron core by a magnetic force generated from the coil to move the first movable contact piece, the movable iron core including a first link part (portion that links with the insulating member), and the insulating member including a second link part (portion of the insulating member that connects with the movable iron core) with a locking groove into which the first link part is locked (as best seen in figure 2), the locking groove including a first flat surface (either of the two surfaces extending in the moving direction) extending in the moving direction and a first step part (at the corners), the first flat surface extending perpendicular to and from the first step part, and the first link part contacting the first flat surface and the first step part to fix the movable iron core to the insulating member (as best seen in figure 2); a housing (14) slidably supporting the insulating member the first movable contact piece and the movable iron core being electrically insulated by the insulating member (inherent functionality for the device to be operable), the housing including a base supporting the drive device, the base slidably supporting the insulating member, a direction in which the drive device is arranged with respect to the base being defined as upward, the insulating member being supported by the base in a vertical direction, and the insulating member being configured to move in a direction that intersects the vertical direction by the drive device, and the first and second fixed terminals penetrating through and projecting downward from the base to an outside of the housing (as best seen in figure 2; see attached figure showing the base and the direction; the ends of the terminals are clearly outside of the housing to make external connection).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the insulating member is fixed to the movable iron core so as to be immovable relative to the movable iron core in the moving direction of the first movable contact piece (as shown in figures 1-2).
In re claim 3, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the insulating member is fixed to the movable iron core so as to be non- rotatable relative to the movable iron core around an axis extending in the moving direction of the first movable contact piece (inherent function of the shown structure).
In re claim 4, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the insulating member includes a first flat surface and a second flat surface extending in the moving direction of the first movable contact piece (as seen in figure 2), the movable iron core includes a third flat surface and a fourth flat surface extending in the moving direction of the first movable contact piece, the first flat surface contacts the third flat surface, and the second flat surface contacts the fourth flat surface (as seen in figure 2).
In re claim 5, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses the movable iron core includes a plurality of plate members provided separately from each other (laminated core is clearly shown in figure 2 and 6).
In re claim 6, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the plurality of plate members are laminated and integrated with each other (as seen in figures 2 and 6).
In re claim 7, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the movable iron core has a non-circular shape in a cross section perpendicular to the moving direction of the first movable contact piece (as seen in the figures).
In re claim 8, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the movable iron core has a prismatic shape (as seen in the figures).
In re claim 9, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses a housing (12-14) configured to slidably support the insulating member (the insulating member slides inside the housing).
In re claim 12, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the housing includes a base (12) configured to support the drive device, and the base is further configured to slidably support the insulating member.
In re claim 13, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses a first return spring configured to contact the insulating member; and a second return spring configured to contact the insulating member (springs 17), wherein the moving direction includes an opening direction in which the first movable contact and the second movable contact move away from the first fixed contact and the second fixed contact, the first return spring is further configured to press the insulating member in the opening direction, and the second return spring is further configured to press the insulating member in the opening direction (inherent function of the shown structure).
In re claim 14, Kazuma, in figures 1-12, discloses that the insulating member (4) includes a first connection part connected to the second link part and to which the first return spring is connected, and a second connection part connected to the second link part and to which the second return spring is connected (the link part is positioned between the connection parts; the connection parts are the parts that the springs contact as seen in figure 2 and 6).
In re claim 16, Kazuma discloses (see annotated figure 2 below) the locking groove has a second flat surface opposite the first flat surface and extends in the moving direct and a second step part, the second flat surface extending perpendicular to and from the second step part, and the first link part has third and fourth flat surfaces respectively contacting the first and second flat surfaces, and has third and fourth step parts respectively contacting the first and second step parts (as seen in figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuma (US 3099730).
In re claims 10-11, Kazuma teaches a protrusion and a recess as claimed except for the positioning of the protrusion and the recess are reversed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reversed the positioning of the protrusion and the recess, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 17-18, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuma (US 3099730) in view of Lange (US 7772945).
In re claim 15, Kazuma discloses a second movable contact piece with third and fourth contacts connected to and electrically insulated by the insulating member but does not disclose the third and fourth fixed contacts on the first and second terminals. Lange however teaches a similar device with multiple fixed contacts connected to one fixed terminal (connected to 212) with a plurality of movable contact pieces having contacts and all connected to one fixed terminal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the configuration of Lange with more than one contact point to the device of Kazuma in order to provide redundancy and improve reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights