DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention 3, Claims 1-8, Figures 4-11 over the phone on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged.
In the arguments dated 11/07/2025, the applicant proposes an alternative election that does not include invention 3, but instead includes invention 6, figure 18, claims 1-15 and 17-19. This proposal is not persuasive because figure 18 shows a circuit arrangement that is does not include all of the structural features claimed in claims 1-8, which is clearly directed to a physical switch structure, not a circuit. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to nonelected species not shown in figures of the elected invention. Claim 7 includes an insulating material that is an alternative structure to the structure shown in the elected figures, as described in paragraph 61. The elected figures show structure without the insulating material.
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 2, 6, and 8 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.
In re claim 2, it is not clear what is the difference between the movable coil and the voice coil. These two structures appear to be the same. Appropriate correction is required. The claim will be examined as best understood.
In re claim 6, the term “respective legs” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In re claim 6 it is not clear how the first and second coil assemblies can include themselves. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jacobs (US 1259406).
In re claim 1, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses a magnetic switch, comprising a frame (7), one or more driver coil assemblies attached to the frame, the one or more driver coil assemblies including one or more driver coils (1-2), a movable coil assembly, the movable coil assembly including a movable coil (3), and a rotor (structure that rotates with the coil 3) mounted on the movable coil assembly, wherein the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil assembly are arranged such that a magnetic field generated when current flows through the one or more driver coils of the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil of the movable coil assembly generates a magnetic force that acts on the movable coil assembly in a direction to produce rotational torque of the rotor mounted to the movable coil assembly to cause actuation of the magnetic switch (inherent functionality of the shown structure).
In re claim 2, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses the movable coil assembly comprises a voice coil configured to provide forward and backward motion of the movable coil assembly depending on a direction of current flow in the voice coil (in the same way as shown by the applicant).
In re claim 4, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses that the one or more driver coil assemblies include at least a first driver coil (1) assembly and a second driver coil (2) assembly, wherein the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly are positioned on opposite sides of the movable coil assembly such that the magnetic field generated when the current flows through driver coils of the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly on the opposite sides of the movable coil assembly are balanced with each other (inherent function of the shown structure).
In re claim 5, Jacobs, in figures 1-4, discloses that the frame (7) is made of a ferromagnetic steel material (see line 76, page 1) to prevent the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly from being pulled towards each other by the magnetic field generated when the current flows through driver coils of the first driver coil assembly and the second driver coil assembly (inherent function of the frame).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US 1259406).
In re claim 3, Jacobs teaches that the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil assembly are arranged such that the magnetic force generated when current flows through the one or more driver coils of the one or more driver coil assemblies and the movable coil of the movable coil assembly acts on the movable coil assembly to cause rotation of the rotor to actuate the magnetic switch. Jacobs does not show a trapezoidal shape. 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 movable coil assembly of Jacobs trapezoidal (or any other desired shape) since it has been held that changing shape of a known device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US 1259406) in view of Baumann (US 0621739).
In re claims 6 and 8, Jacobs discloses the claimed device but does not disclose two driver coil assemblies positioned on each side of the movable coil. Baumann teaches that a configuration with two coils positioned on each side of a rotor structure is known in the art (as seen in figure 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned two coils as taught by Baumann on each side (for a total of four coils) of the rotor structure of Jacobs to provide redundancy.
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