DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that: “The claimed invention addresses the abnormal condition of a short-circuited arc between fixed terminals. In contrast, Hiraiwa only deals with extinguishing a normal arc. The structure of Hiraiwa cannot extinguish a short-circuited arc between fixed terminals.” This argument is not persuasive because both Hiraiwa and the claimed invention extinguish an arc. Hiraiwa does not disclose anywhere in the disclosure a normal arc or any difference between different types of arcs. The applicant did not provide any evidence of physical differences between a normal arc of the prior art and a short circuit arc of the claimed invention and how the physical structure differences between the claimed device and the prior art device create the different arc types. Thus, it is not clear from the arguments what physical difference between the structures of the prior art and the claimed invention are present.
The applicant also argues that “Hiraiwa's insulation walls (2013a, 2013b) are components of the bobbin/housing and are physically separate from the magnet 23c. The claimed invention requires that the magnet's surface itself is covered with an insulating material.” This argument is not persuasive because the claim only requires the magnet to be covered with insulating material, which is physically a separate structure from the magnet as claimed. There are no further details that are claimed about how the magnet is covered. The prior art clearly discloses insulation covering the claimed surfaces of the magnets (see paragraph 68 of the prior art).
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 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hiraiwa et al. (US 2014/0159837).
In re claim 1, Hiraiwa, in figures 1-21, discloses an electromagnetic relay, comprising: a first fixed terminal (203a); a first fixed contact (204) connected to the first fixed terminal; a second fixed terminal (203b) disposed apart from the first fixed terminal in a first direction from the first fixed terminal; a second fixed contact (204b) connected to the second fixed terminal; a first movable contact (303a) disposed to face the first fixed contact in a second direction that intersects with the first direction; a second movable contact (303b) disposed to face the second fixed contact in the second direction; a movable contact piece (301) connected to the first movable contact and the second movable contact; a drive device (20) configured to move the movable contact piece in the second direction; an outer magnet (23a, 23b) disposed outside the first fixed terminal and the second fixed terminal, the outer magnet being configured to generate a first magnetic field to elongate an arc generated between the first fixed contact and the first movable contact and between the second fixed contact and the second movable contact; and an inner magnet (23c) at least partially disposed between the first fixed terminal and the second fixed terminal as seen from the second direction, the inner magnet being configured to generate a second magnetic field to elongate the arc in a third direction that intersects with the first direction and the second direction (inherent functionality of the shown structure), the inner magnet being structured and arranged to extend a short-circuited arc between the first fixed terminal and the second fixed terminal (as discussed in paragraph 89 with respect to figures 9 and 10), wherein the inner magnet includes a first surface (surface that is furthest from the contacts) and a second surface (surface that is not the first surface) closer to the first fixed contact and the second fixed contact than the first surface (this is best seen in figure 21), and wherein at least the second surface of the inner magnet is covered with an insulating material (see paragraph 68 discussing insulation walls providing insulation covering the magnet 23c).
In re claim 9, Hiraiwa, in figures 1-21, discloses that the second surface faces a space between the first fixed terminal and the second fixed terminal (this is an inherent function of the positioning of the magnet).
In re claim 10, Hiraiwa, in figures 1-21, discloses that the inner magnet is located between the first fixed terminal and the second fixed terminal in the first direction (as best seen in figures 5 and 21).
In re claim 11, Hiraiwa, in figures 1-21, discloses that the inner magnet is disposed at a position not overlapping the first fixed terminal and the second fixed terminal as seen from the second direction (as best seen in figures 5 and 21; the second direction is any direction that is not the first direction in which the inner magnet does not overlap the fixed terminals).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights