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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/10/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipfer [US 9,799,470].
In regard to claim 1, Kipfer discloses [in Fig. 1] a DC disconnector comprising: a static electrical contact [14a], comprising a plurality of contact elements [20]; at least one moveable electrical contact [38], comprising a conductor blade [18a]; and a shaft [16], coupled to the movable electrical contact [38], wherein the shaft [16] is configured to actuate the moveable electrical contact [38] between a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein at least a portion of the conductor blade [18a] abuts at least one contact element [20] in the first configuration, and wherein the conductor blade [16] is displaced from the contact elements in the second configuration. Kipfer does not explicitly disclose that each contact element is individually and reversibly coupled to the static electrical contact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide contact elements that are individually and reversibly coupled to the static electrical contact, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, providing contact elements that are individually and reversibly coupled to the static electrical contact would enable replacement of the contact elements when needed due to wear. Kipfer also does not disclose that the at least one movable contact comprises a plurality of conductor blades. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide that the at least one movable contact comprise a plurality of conductor blades, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regard to claims 3 and 4, Kipfer discloses [in Fig. 1] some of the limitations of the DC disconnector of claim 1, wherein each contact element [20] comprises: a contact engaging face [face of 20 that contacts 18a] configured to contact at least one conductor blade [18a] in the first configuration; and a connecting plate [pointed to at 20, connecting to 14a, Fig. 1] configured to couple the contact element [20] to the static electrical contact [14a], wherein each connecting plate comprises a cut-out portion, wherein the cut-out portion is configured to accommodate deformation of the connecting plate.
In regard to claim 5, Kipfer discloses [in Fig. 1] some of the limitations of the DC disconnector of claim 1, wherein the plurality of contact elements [20] are spaced along at least one edge of the static electrical contact [14a].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipfer [US 9,799,470] in view of Yang [CN208127103]. Kipfer discloses [in Fig. 1] some of the limitations of the DC disconnector of claim 1. Kipfer does not disclose that at least a portion of each contact element is arranged in a recess of the static electrical contact. Yang teaches [in Figs. 1-4B] that at least a portion of each contact element [2015] is arranged in a recess [2016] of the static electrical contact [2014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange at least a portion of each contact element in a recess of the stating electrical contact in order to help further secure the switch components to one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
