DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Gray does not teach a plate like shape of the fixed terminal. This argument is not persuasive because Gray, in figure 1, discloses a plate like shape on a fixed terminal (surface 77b is plate like as well as the opposite surface of the terminal).
The applicant argues that “Furthermore, the examiner points out that the reference numbers 77 and 72 in Gray are female screw members. However, the reference numbers 77 and 72 are fixed terminals and are not components to screw the external terminal to the external connecting portion.” This argument is not persuasive because as is most clearly shown in figure 5, members 77 and 72 have cavities to receive external structures. Member 72 clearly shows a threaded section 72b intended to receive a screw. The female screw member receives the external terminal portion and is thus configured to screw the external connection portion to the external terminal.
With respect to claim 4, the applicant argues that the 112b rejection has been overcome, however, the indefinite claim language is still present. The newly added claim language does not make it clear how an outer support portion can be located outside the case body if it is also part of the case and the case body. Having the outer support portion extending from the case body does not make it also be outside the case body.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4, it is not clear how an outer support portion can be located outside the case body if it is also part of the case and the case body (based on the figures). These all appear to be one structure in the figures, but the claim language appears to have the outer support portion to be a separate structure from the case body. 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, 3, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gray et al. (US 4862123).
In re claim 1, Gray, in figures 1-5, discloses an electromagnetic relay, comprising: a case; a fixed terminal (72,74-77) having a plate-like shape (portion that faces the moving contact), the fixed terminal including an internal portion disposed inside the case and an external connecting portion (116) integrated with the internal portion, the external connecting portion having a screw insertion hole (inside 116) that is exposed to an outside from the case (as seen in the figures), the external connecting portion being configured to be screwed to an external terminal; and a female screw member (female portions of 77, 72) prevented from rotating by the case, the female screw member being configured to screw the external connecting portion to the external terminal (as best seen in figure 5), the case including a held portion configured to be held between the external connecting portion of the fixed terminal and the female screw member in a direction of penetration of the screw insertion hole (as seen in figure 5), the direction including a first direction from the female screw member toward the external connecting portion and a second direction from the external connecting portion toward the female screw member (in the same way as shown in the figures by the applicant).
In re claim 3, Gray, in figures 1-5, discloses that the female screw member has an end surface exposed to the outside from the case in the second direction (as seen in figure 5).
In re claim 7, Gray, in figures 1-5, discloses that the case is comprised of resin (see line 13, column 3).
In re claim 11, Gray, in figures 1-5, discloses that the female screw member is spaced apart from an inner portion (72c, 77b) of the fixed terminal.
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 4862123) in view of Isozaki et al. (US 9378914).
In re claims 8, Gray discloses the claimed device except for a separate body female screw member. Isozaki however, teaches a similar device (see figure 1) with a terminal arrangement having the female screw member is a separate body from the fixed terminal (the female screw member can be seen in figure 1 as a separate body coupling with the screw). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the terminal configuration of Isozaki, including the separate body female screw member, to the device of Gray to reduce the height of the device.
In re claims 9 and 10, Gray discloses the claimed device except for the claimed overlap details. Isozaki however, teaches a similar device (see figure 1) with terminals/female screw member arranged at a position without overlapping with an inner portion of the fixed terminal when viewed from the direction of penetration of the screw insertion hole. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the terminal configuration of Isozaki, including terminals arranged at a position without overlapping with an inner portion of the fixed terminal, to the device of Gray in order to reduce the height of the device.
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 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