DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-9, 11-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui et al. (US 2009/0267715) in view of Minowa et al. (US 2005/0242907) and Mader (US 6144270).
In re claim 1, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses a core (5) for a coil (7) of a switching device, comprising: an armature abutment section (at surface 8b) abutting an armature (11) in a closed condition; an armature bearing section (this can be either one of two sections at surface 8a on either side of the armature) mounting the armature to the core; and a coil section receiving a coil and extending along a longitudinal axis from the armature abutment section to the armature bearing section (as seen in figure 1), the coil section and at least one of the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section extend along separate planes offset from one another perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (as seen in figure 1), a step is formed at a transition area between the coil section and at least one of the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section (both areas show steps in Fukui as seen in figure 1), the step is an inclined part that is inclined to the longitudinal axis at an angle greater than 0° and less than 90° (inclined part in the step is shown in figure 1 in the same position as the inclined part that is claimed and is shown in the figures of the application, and also meets the angle limitations in at least some portions of the step) and connects a part of the coil section that is parallel to the longitudinal axis to a part of the armature abutment section and/or the armature bearing section that is parallel to the longitudinal axis. Fukui shows the core having wings but does not clearly show all of the claimed wings or the armature having a frame with an opening. Minowa however, teaches that a core having two pairs of wings extending in the claimed direction is known in the art to be used in a similar device (Figures 11B, 12E and 13D show the best views). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the teaching of a core with two pairs of wings as taught by Minowa to the core of Fukui to improve the flow of magnetic flux through the device. Mader, in figures 1-4, teaches a similar device having an armature (3) having a frame with an opening (as best seen in figures 1-2) with the coil at least being partially received in the opening. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the armature structure of Fukui/Minowa with an opening as taught by Mader to allow the armature to fit around the coil and therefore reduce the size of the device as shown by Mader.
In re claim 2, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses a flat face of the coil section is offset to a flat face of at least one of the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section (as seen in figure 1).
In re claim 3, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that the coil section is offset from both the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (as shown in figure 1).
In re claim 4, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section are aligned with one another (as seen in figure 1).
In re claim 5, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that a height of the coil section in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is smaller than a height of the armature bearing section (as seen in figure 1).
In re claim 6, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that a material thickness of the armature bearing section is smaller than or equal to a material thickness of the coil section (they are equal as clearly seen in figure 1).
In re claim 7, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that the coil section forms a constriction of the core in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (inherent function of the shown structure as seen in figure 1).
In re claim 8, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that the armature bearing section, and the coil section are formed integrally with one another as a monolithic core (as seen in figure 1).
In re claim 9, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that the coil section forms an embossment of the core (as seen in figure 1; in the same way as shown by the applicant).
In re claim 11, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that a flange (9a, 9b) is disposed at at least one of the transition areas and separates the coil section from at least one of the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section.
In re claim 12, Fukui teaches the flange and a mounting bracket (this can be best seen in figure 2) attached to the armature bearing section for mounting the armature. It is not clear that the two structures are an integral and a monolithic part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the flange and the mounting bracket integrally, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 33, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 13, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses a magnetic assembly for a switching device, comprising: a core (5) including an armature abutment section (at surface 8b), an armature bearing section (at surface 8a), and a coil section extending along a longitudinal axis from the armature abutment section to the armature bearing section (as seen in figure 1), the coil section and at least one of the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section extend along separate planes offset from one another perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (as seen in figure 1); a step is formed at a transition area between the coil section and at least one of the armature abutment section (both areas show steps in Fukui as seen in figure 1) and the armature bearing section, the step is an inclined part that is inclined to the longitudinal axis at an angle greater than 0° and less than 90° (inclined part in the step is shown in figure 1 in the same position as the inclined part that is claimed and is shown in the figures of the application, and also meets the angle limitations in at least some portions of the step) and connects a part of the coil section that is parallel to the longitudinal axis to a part of the armature abutment section and/or the armature bearing section that is parallel to the longitudinal axis; and a coil (7) arranged on the coil section. Fukui shows the core having wings but does not clearly show all of the claimed wings or the armature having a frame with an opening. Minowa however, teaches that a core having two pairs of wings extending in the claimed direction is known in the art to be used in a similar device (Figures 11B, 12E and 13D show the best views). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the teaching of a core with two pairs of wings as taught by Minowa to the core of Fukui to improve the flow of magnetic flux through the device. Mader, in figures 1-4, teaches a similar device having an armature (3) having a frame with an opening (as best seen in figures 1-2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the armature structure of Fukui/Minowa with an opening as taught by Mader to allow the armature to fit around the coil and therefore reduce the size of the device as shown by Mader.
In re claim 15, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses the armature is movable from an open configuration in which the armature is distanced from the armature abutment section (position shown in figure 1) to a closed configuration in which the armature abuts the armature abutment section (inherent function of the shown structure).
In re claim 16, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses a switching device, comprising: a magnetic assembly including a core (5) a coil (7), and an armature (11), the core has an armature abutment section (at surface 8b), an armature bearing section (at surface 8a), and a coil section extending along a longitudinal axis from the armature abutment section to the armature bearing section (as seen in figure 1), the coil section and at least one of the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section extend along separate planes offset from one another perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, a step is formed at a transition area between the coil section and at least one of the armature abutment section and the armature bearing section (both areas show steps in Fukui as seen in figure 1), the step is an inclined part that is inclined to the longitudinal axis at an angle greater than 0° and less than 90° (inclined part in the step is shown in figure 1 in the same position as the inclined part that is claimed and is shown in the figures of the application, and also meets the angle limitations in at least some portions of the step) and connects a part of the coil section that is parallel to the longitudinal axis to a part of the armature abutment section and/or the armature bearing section that is parallel to the longitudinal axis, the coil is arranged on the coil section (as seen in figure 1). Fukui shows the core having wings but does not clearly show all of the claimed wings or the armature having a frame with an opening. Minowa however, teaches that a core having two pairs of wings extending in the claimed direction is known in the art to be used in a similar device (Figures 11B, 12E and 13D show the best views). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the teaching of a core with two pairs of wings as taught by Minowa to the core of Fukui to improve the flow of magnetic flux through the device. Mader, in figures 1-4, teaches a similar device having an armature (3) having a frame with an opening (as best seen in figures 1-2) with the coil being at least partially received in the opening. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the armature structure of Fukui/Minowa with an opening as taught by Mader to allow the armature to fit around the coil and therefore reduce the size of the device as shown by Mader.
In re claim 17, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses an electromagnetic relay (as clearly seen in figure 1).
In re claim 18, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that a material thickness of the armature bearing section (the armature bearing section that meets the claim limitation is annotated in figure 1 below) along a lateral axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is smaller than a material thickness of the coil section along the lateral axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 19, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that a height of the coil section along the vertical axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and perpendicular to the lateral axis is smaller than a height of the armature bearing section along the vertical axis (this is clearly seen in figure 2).
In re claim 20, Fukui, in figures 1-6, discloses that a material thickness of the armature abutment section along the lateral axis is larger than the material thickness of the armature bearing section along the lateral axis (as clearly seen in figure 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
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