DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. Claims 1-11 are currently amended. Claims 12-22 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 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.
Prior art Taniguchi (US 5000692 A) shows using manual override knob optionally in figs. 1 and 18. Please see rejection below for further details.
Regarding claim 2, applicant argues on page 26 of Remarks filed 08/04/2025
Noellat’s "manual drive unit" toggles a contactor but does not allow intermediate or third positional freedom, such as an “auto” setting where the manual override does not interfere with electrical control. Without this third position, Noellat fails to anticipate the three-position structure as required by the claim.
Examiner disagrees respectfully. Please refer to figs.11-13 and specification paragraph [0038] of prior art Noellat, which recites “FIGS. 11 to 13 are diagrammatic plan views of the FIG. 1 disconnect device, in which the knob is shown in the forced-closed position, in the operational position, and in the forced-open position respectively.” It is apparent that the operational position of Noellat is claim equivalent of “automatically turn on and off”. Please further refer to specification paragraph [0046] of prior art Noellat that recites “They also include an electromagnetic control system 31A that is designed to move the movable bridge 39A between its closed position and its open position automatically”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Rotary switches or dip switches of claim 6
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 5, “independently operable relays” should be –of the electromechanical relay--.
Claim 1 line 6, “each of the two or more independently operable relays” should be –the electromechanical relay--.
Claim 1 line 8, “each relay” should be –the electromechanical relay--.
Claim 5 line 5, “to those inputs and the internal microprocessor program” should be -- to the internal inputs and internal microprocessor program--. Similar correction is required in claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 3 recites “a modular family of electrical switching relays”. It is unclear if these relays are different from “An electromechanical relay” of line 1. Based on specification and figs.1-2 and 15, examiner interprets the first 5 lines of claim 1 as follows --An electromechanical relay with manual override knob for enclosures capable of containing two or more independently operable relays;--.
The term “a plurality of selectable product permutations” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a plurality of selectable product permutations” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The product being considered in claim 1 is the electromechanical relay of line 1. For the purpose of examination, based on specification and figs.1-2 and 15, the electromechanical relay of claim 1 is interpreted to have two product permutations: the electromechanical relay with manual override knob and the electromechanical relay with blank fillers. Further, the unique components for building the electromechanical relay of line 1 is considered to be parts 212 and 217 of figs.1-2. On page 20, applicant argues that knobs, fillers and enclosures form the unique components. Examiner disagrees that enclosure/s are unique components to build the electromechanical relay.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted to be –comprising--.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as stated above for claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noellat (US 20160314922 A1), and further in view of Taniguchi (US 5000692 A).
Regarding claim 1, Noellat teaches an electromechanical relay (e.g. disconnect device 1, figs.1, 11-13) with manual override knob (i.e. knob 41, figs.1, 11-13) for enclosures (e.g. casing 10, fig.1);
where the electromechanical relay is selectively constructed to either have the manual override knob (e.g. knob 41, figs.1, 11-13) or to have a blank filler (e.g. locking means 60, figs.1, 11-13),
thus resulting in a plurality of selectable product permutations (e.g. various stable configuration of switch 10, figs.11-13) ([0118], The locking means 60 are designed to prevent the manual drive means 40 from being manipulated by a third party when not desired by the user) from a reduced number of unique components that are required to build the electromechanical relay (e.g. having padlock in locking means 60 and not having padlock in locking means 60, wherein padlock is the unique component, figs.11-13).
Noellat does not teach the enclosure capable of containing two or more of the electromechanical relay;
wherein the electromechanical relay is configured independently to include or exclude the manual override knob prior to assembly.
Taniguchi teaches in a similar field of endeavor of relay interface module, enclosure (e.g. rectangular housing 40, fig.1) capable of containing two or more of an electromechanical relay (e.g. multiple relays 30, fig.1);
wherein the electromechanical relay is configured independently to include or exclude the manual override knob prior to assembly (e.g. dummy relay 37 includes push button 38 and other relays do not have push buttons before being assembled onto housing 40, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the enclosure capable of containing two or more of the electromechanical relay; wherein the electromechanical relay is configured independently to include or exclude the manual override knob prior to assembly in Noellat, as taught by Taniguchi, as it provides the advantage of expanding the enclosure with additional electromechanical relays.
Regarding claim 2, Noellat and Taniguchi teach the electromechanical relay with manual override knob of claim 1, further comprising
The manual override knob consists of three distinct positions for
(1) forcing/maintaining the electromechanical relay on (Noellat, i.e. forced-closed position, FIG. 11),
(2) forcing/maintaining the electromechanical relay off (Noellat, i.e. forced-open position, FIG. 13), and
(3) allowing the electromechanical relay to automatically turn on and off (Noellat, [0046], They also include an electromagnetic control system 31A that is designed to move the movable bridge 39A between its closed position and its open position automatically).
Regarding claim 5, Noellat and Taniguchi teach the electromechanical relay with manual override knob of claim 2, wherein
The electromechanical relay includes a printed wiring board (Noellat, [0008], An electrical disconnect device as mentioned above is known in particular from document EP 2 521 150) (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, i.e. printed circuit 146) (fig.6) and microprocessor (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, i.e. microcontroller 1466) (fig.6) to receive external and internal inputs (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, i.e. contacts 1464 for the connectors) (fig.6), and automatically open or close the relay in response to the internal inputs and internal microprocessor program (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, page 6, controlling operation of the driver 1462 and communication through the connectors 18a and 18b).
Claims 3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noellat (US 20160314922 A1) and Taniguchi (US 5000692 A), and further in view of Ritzenthaler (US 4220937 A).
Regarding claim 3, Noellat and Taniguchi teach the electromechanical relay with manual override knob of claim 2.
Noellat and Taniguchi do not teach, wherein a manual control axis is perpendicular to the axis of electromechanical relay operation.
Ritzenthaler teaches in a similar field of endeavor of electromechanical relay with manual override control, a manual control axis (e.g. axis of manually movable actuating knob 20, fig.3) is perpendicular to the axis of electromechanical relay operation (e.g. axis of coil 50 and axis from contacts 40-42, fig.3) (the axis of knob 20 and axis of coil and contact operation are perpendicular as seen in fig.3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the manual control axis is perpendicular to the axis of electromechanical relay operation in Noellat and Taniguchi, as taught by Ritzenthaler, as it provides the advantage of inexpensive to manufacture and will fit existing plug-in-receptacles.
Regarding claim 7, is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Noellat, Taniguchi and Ritzenthaler teach the electromechanical relay with manual override knob of claim 8, wherein a relay solenoid (Noellat, [0027], electromagnetic control system comprises… coil that surrounds said core) includes a magnet (Noellat, [0027], a core that is made of magnetic material) to allow bi-stable operation (Noellat, [0027], that is mounted to move in a body) and not require electrical current in a solenoid windings (Noellat, [0027], coil that surrounds said core) to maintain the electromechanical relay in the on or off position (Noellat, [0027], traction force on said core).
Regarding claim 10, is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, Noellat, Taniguchi and Ritzenthaler teach the electromechanical relay with manual override knob of claim 8, wherein a printed wiring board contains (Noellat, [0008], An electrical disconnect device as mentioned above is known in particular from document EP 2 521 150) (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, i.e. printed circuit 146) (fig.6) one or more configurable mechanical device such as rotary switches (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, i.e. handle 24) (fig.6) or dip switches accessible by installers and operators (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, page 6, contactor 10 comprises an actuator that can be operated by a user) that allows an installer/operator to set device configuration settings (Noellat, EP 2521150, page 6, where the actuator 24 operates a mechanism within the contactor 10 for interrupting the electrical connection between the contacts mechanically).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noellat (US 20160314922 A1) and Taniguchi (US 5000692 A), and further in view of Hoffman (US 6414577 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Noellat and Taniguchi teach the electromechanical relay with manual override knob of claim 2, wherein a relay solenoid ([0027], electromagnetic control system comprises… coil that surrounds said core) includes a magnet ([0027], a core that is made of magnetic material) to allow bi-stable operation ([0027], that is mounted to move in a body) and not require electrical current in a solenoid windings ([0027], coil that surrounds said core) to maintain the electromechanical relay in the on or off position ([0027], traction force on said core).
Noellat and Taniguchi do not teach a permanent magnet.
Hoffman teaches in a similar field of endeavor of DC relays, RF microwave switches and other similar switching components and applications, a permanent magnet (abstract, A core with coils and permanent magnet, and a movable magnet holder including permanent magnet).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the permanent magnet in Noellat and Taniguchi, as taught by Hoffman, as it provides the advantage of failsafe latching during switching function.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Noellat (US 20160314922 A1) and Taniguchi (US 5000692 A) teach the electromechanical relay with manual override knob of claim 2, wherein a printed wiring board (Noellat, [0008], An electrical disconnect device as mentioned above is known in particular from document EP 2 521 150) (Noellat, EP 2521150 A1, i.e. printed circuit 146) (fig.6).
Noellat and Taniguchi do not teach, one or more configurable mechanical device comprising rotary switches or dip switches separate from the main relay actuator and accessible to installers for non-volatile configuration that allows an installer/operator to set device configuration settings.
Prior art Hoffman (US 6414577 B1), Dogul (US 5559664 A) and Ritzenthaler (US 4220937 A) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “one or more configurable mechanical device comprising rotary switches or dip switches separate from the main relay actuator and accessible to installers for non-volatile configuration that allows an installer/operator to set device configuration settings.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 10/14/2025