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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 1, the phrases “an isolation structure, which is disposed between the electromagnetic unit and the contact unit” and “the isolation structure is disposed on the contact support”;
In claim 10, the phrase “the isolation structure and the contact support are integrally formed”;
In claim 11, the phrase “the main body and the isolation structure are integrally formed”.
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 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, 2, 4, 5, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennison (US 4,710,740) in view of Tsugawa (2005/0217313).
Regarding claim 1, Dennison discloses a electromagnetic device comprising:
a main body (4, 34), which is provided with a first opening (4a);
a contact unit (see the drawing below), which is disposed in the main body (4, 34
the contact unit (see the drawing below) comprising a movable contact part (12) and a stationary contact part (6, 8),
an electromagnetic unit (28), which is disposed in the main body (4, 34),
wherein the electromagnetic unit (28) is configured to control the movable contact part (12) to contact with or separate from the stationary contact part (6, 8);
an isolation structure (see the drawing below), which is disposed between the electromagnetic unit (28) and the contact unit (see the drawing below).
a contact support (see the drawing below), which is slidably disposed in the main body (4, 34), and
the contact support (see the drawing below) is configured to carry the movable contact part (12),
wherein the isolation structure (see the drawing below) is disposed on the contact support (see the drawing below).
[AltContent: textbox (Contact unit)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact support)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Isolation structure)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
234
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Dennison teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the isolation structure is configured to block refrigerant entering from the first opening from entering a space where the movable contact part and the stationary contact part contact each other through the electromagnetic unit.
Tsugawa discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
the electromagnetic valve 7 is closed to block a refrigerant passage between the receiver/dryer 3 and the expansion valve 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teaching of Tsugawa to modify Dennison’s device to be used in the environment of Tsugawa and utilize the teaching of Tsugawa to prevent the refrigerant from entering.
Regarding claim 2, Dennison discloses:
the isolation structure (see the drawing above) is disposed between a side of the stationary contact part (6, 8) away from the movable contact part (12) and the electromagnetic unit (28).
Regarding claim 4, Dennison discloses:
the isolation structure (see the drawing above) is disposed in the main body (see the drawing above).
Regarding claim 5, Dennison discloses:
the isolation structure (see the drawing above) is disposed in the main body.
Regarding claim 10, Dennison discloses:
the isolation structure (see the drawing above) and the contact support (see the drawing above) are integrally formed.
Regarding claim 16, Dennison teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the isolation structure is made of at least one of self-lubricating materials and wear-resistant materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the isolation structure is made of at least one of self-lubricating materials and wear-resistant materials for the purpose of remaining durable and having a long-lasting life of the isolation structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennison (US 4,710,740) and Tsugawa (2005/0217313) in view of Hurley et al. (US 4,739,293).
Regarding claim 17, Dennison and Tsugawa teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the main body comprises: a housing, wherein the contact unit, the electromagnetic unit, and the isolation structure are disposed in the housing, and the housing is provided with an open end; and a cover plate, which is configured to cover the open end of the housing, wherein the first opening is provided on the main body and corresponding to the electromagnetic unit.
Regarding claim 17, Hurley discloses an electromagnetic contactor comprising:
a housing (see the drawing below),
wherein the contact unit (44, 48, 22, 26), the electromagnetic unit (30, 31A), and the isolation structure (see the drawing below) are disposed in the housing (see the drawing below), and
the housing (see the drawing below) is provided with an open end; and
a cover plate (see the drawing 31 below), which is configured to cover the open end of the housing (see the drawing 31 below),
wherein the first opening (see the drawing below) is provided on the main body (see the drawing below) and corresponding to the electromagnetic unit (30, 31A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover plate as taught by Hurley with Dennison’s device for the purpose of protecting parts inside.
[AltContent: textbox (Cover plate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Housing )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
310
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 31 of Hurley
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley et al. (US 4,739,293) in view of Tsugawa (2005/0217313).
Regarding claim 18, Hurley discloses an electromagnetic contactor comprising:
a main body (see the drawing below) which is provided with a first opening (see the drawing below);
a contact unit (46’, 48’, 22’, 26’), which is disposed in the main body (see the drawing below),
the contact unit (4’, 48’, 22’, 26’) comprising a movable contact part (46’, 48’) and a stationary contact part (22’, 26’);
an electromagnetic unit (30’), which is disposed in the main body (see the drawing below);
wherein the electromagnetic unit (see the drawing below) is configured to control the movable contact part (46’, 48’) to contact with or separate from the stationary contact part (22’, 6’); and
an isolation structure (see the drawing below), which is disposed between the electromagnetic unit (30’) and the contact unit (46’, 48’, 22’, 26’).
Regarding claim 18, Hurley teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the isolation structure is configured to block refrigerant entering from the first opening from entering a space where the movable contact part and the stationary contact part contact each other through the electromagnetic unit.
Regarding claim 18, Tsugawa discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
the electromagnetic valve 7 is closed to block a refrigerant passage between the receiver/dryer 3 and the expansion valve 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the electromagnetic valve 7 as taught by Tsugawa as the isolation structure to block refrigerant entering from the first opening from entering a space where the movable contact part and the stationary contact part contact each other through the electromagnetic unit of Hurley s device for the purpose of preventing all refrigerant in the refrigeration cycle from releasing into the compartment in large amounts.
[AltContent: textbox (Isolation structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
311
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11-15 are 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:
The prior art does not teach or suggest the contact unit comprises:
Claim 6: the isolation structure comprises: an isolation rib protruding from an outer wall of the contact support, wherein the isolation rib is configured to extend along a width direction of the movable contact part; there are a plurality of isolation ribs, and the plurality of the isolation ribs are respectively disposed on both sides of the contact support along a length direction of the movable contact part.
Claim 11: the main body and the isolation structure are integrally formed.
Claim 12: the main body is provided with a through hole, and the contact support is configured to penetrate through the through hole and is in sliding fit with thereof; a gap is provided between the isolation structure and the through hole; an effective opening size deff of the gap is less than or equal to a threshold size of a standard opening limit; the threshold size of the standard opening limit is 22.3 x Su-109 (in mm); and Su represents a burning velocity of refrigerant, in cm/s.
Claim 13: the isolation structure is disposed along an edge of the through hole and a gap is provided between the isolation structure and the contact support; an effective opening size deff of the gap is less than or equal to a threshold size of a standard opening limit; the threshold size of the standard opening limit is 22.3 x Su-109(in mm); and Su represents the burning velocity of refrigerant, in cm/s.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Lisa Homza whose telephone number is (571) 272-3592.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached on (571) 272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lisa Nhung Homza/
Patent Examiner - Art Unit 2837
September 29, 2026
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
