Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/837,114

Spring Assembly for Biasing an Armature of a Switching Device, and Switching Device Comprising Such Spring Assembly

Non-Final OA §102§112§Other
Filed
Jun 10, 2022
Examiner
TALPALATSKI, ALEXANDER
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tyco Electronics Austria GmbH
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
598 granted / 831 resolved
+4.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 831 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112 §Other
DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23 have been considered but are not persuasive because it is not clear that there is sufficient support for the newly added limitations. Figure 4 clearly shows the thickness of the spring base 7 is smaller than the width of the receptacle 10. This is even true when including the unclaimed height HE as discussed in paragraph 17. In order to fit into the receptacle 10, the spring base has to be thinner than the width of the receptacle. For this reason, this newly added limitation cannot be considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In re claim 23, the newly added limitation of “a width of the mounting receptacle is smaller than a thickness of the spring base” is not enabled because the spring base is positioned inside the receptacle and thus has to be smaller. This is supported by the figures where the spring base thickness is clearly less than the width of the receptacle (see figure 4 for best view), which is the opposite of what is claimed. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. In re claim 23, it is not clear how a width of the mounting receptacle can be smaller than the thickness of the spring base because the spring base fits inside the receptacle and thus has to be smaller than the receptacle. For this reason, this limitation will not be given weight. 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) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoshino et al. (US 6262958). In re claim 23, Yoshino, in figures 2-5, discloses a switching device, comprising: a yoke (3); a positioning wall; a mounting receptacle (space where the embossment is positioned) defined between the yoke and the positioning wall (10); and a spring assembly including a spring base and a spring arm protruding from the spring base, the spring base having an embossment (6b) positioning the spring assembly in the mounting receptacle and a base securing element (6a) locking the spring assembly in the mounting receptacle, the base securing element extends from the spring base and has a folded back hook section extending back toward the spring base (as best seen in figure 4). In re claim 24, the limitations in this claim are not given weight because they are product by process limitations. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e switching device, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. compressing and press fittingly positioning the embossment as claimed. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, 7-22, and 25 are allowed. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 10, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §Other
Feb 27, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112, §Other
May 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §Other
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112, §Other
Jan 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §Other (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597576
ELECTROMAGNETIC RELAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12567550
CIRCUIT BREAKERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12555732
ELECTROMECHANICAL ROTARY LATCH FOR USE IN CURRENT INTERRUPTION DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549051
ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12548702
MAGNET ORIENTATION DEVICE AND MAGNET
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 831 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month