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 - SECOND OBJECTION
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the element number “13” as described in the specification paragraph [0060]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 3, the phrase “the contact support is configured to carry the movable contact part, wherein the isolation structure is disposed on the contact support”
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.
Specification SECOND OBJECTION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0060], the element “103” is not described in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkman (US 10,262,810) in view of Tsugawa (2005/0217313).
Regarding claim 1, Burkman discloses a movable contact comprising:
a main body (64), which is provided with a first opening;
a contact unit (68, 72), which is disposed in the main body (64),
the contact unit (68, 72) comprising a movable contact part (68) and a stationary contact part (72);
an electromagnetic unit (96), which is disposed in the main body (64),
wherein the electromagnetic unit (96) is configured to control the movable contact part (68) to contact with or separate from the stationary contact part (72);
an isolation structure (see the drawing below), which is disposed between the electromagnetic unit (96) and the contact unit (68, 72).
a contact support (128a), which is slidably disposed in the main body (64), and
the contact support (128a) is configured to carry the movable contact part (68), wherein the isolation structure (see the drawing above) is disposed on the contact support (128a).
Regarding claim 1, Burkman 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.
a contact support (128a), which is slidably disposed in the main body (64), and
the contact support (128a) is configured to carry the movable contact part (68), wherein the isolation structure (see the drawing above) is disposed on the contact support (128a).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Isolation structure)][AltContent: arrow] Annotated FIG. 2 of Burkman
PNG
media_image1.png
354
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 2 of Burkman
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 Burkman’s device for the purpose of preventing all refrigerant in the refrigeration cycle from releasing into the compartment in large amounts.
Regarding claim 2, Burkman discloses:
the isolation structure (see the drawing below) is disposed between a side of the stationary contact part away from the movable contact part (68) and the electromagnetic unit.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
297
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 2 of Burkman
Regarding claim 4, Burkman teaches:
the isolation structure (see the drawing above) is disposed in the main body (64).
Regarding claim 5, Burkman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the isolation structure is disposed in the main body.
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 (see the drawing above) is disposed in the main body (64), for the purpose of protecting the parts inside.
Regarding claim 10, Burkman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the isolation structure (see the drawing above) and the contact support (128a) are integrally formed.
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 (see the drawing above) and the contact support (128a) are integrally formed for the purpose of suitability of the intended use, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 11, Burkman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the main body and the isolation structure are integrally formed.
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 main body (64) and the isolation structure (see the drawing below/above) are integrally formed for the purpose of suitability of the intended use, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 16, Burkman 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 Burkman (US 10,262,810) and Tsugawa (2005/0217313) in view of Hurley et al. (US 4,739,293).
Regarding claim 17, Burkman 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 Burkman’s device for the purpose of protecting parts inside.
[AltContent: textbox (Cover plate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Housing )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
310
415
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 31 of Hurley
[AltContent: textbox (Isolation structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Housing )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
397
329
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 2 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_image5.png
311
334
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS:
Page 11, last paragraph, applicant argued that:
Applicant respectfully submits that Burkman fails to disclose an isolation structure disposed on the second part 128a of the second bracket 120a. Burkman does not disclose any information about the part which indicated by Office Action as the isolation structure. As shown in Fig. 2 of Burkman, the second part 128a of the second bracket 120a is separated from the isolation structure without any contact.”
This argument is not found to be persuasive, because the isolation structure is the frame around the contact support (128a), (see the drawing below). The area above the contact support (128a) is considered on the contact support. Since claim 1 is not specifically cited the isolation structure is directly disposed on the contact support, Burkman’s isolation structure shown below is considered on the contact support (128a).
PNG
media_image6.png
352
412
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12-15 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 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
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 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
April 9, 2026
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights