DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant identified a protrusion in the disclosure that was previously not identified to overcome the enablement rejection. This argument is persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach all of the claim limitations directed to the protrusion and specifically points to a protrusion in the Minowa reference as restricting the movement of the extension portion in a direction that is not the claimed direction.
This argument is not persuasive because Minowa includes not only one protrusion cited by the applicant, but two protrusions as circled in the figure below restricting the movement of the extension portion in both directions, including in the claimed direction, thus meeting the claim limitations. Furthermore, Yoshihara already teaches contact arrangements in the same directions as the claimed contacts. Modification of Yoshihara with Minowa does not require reversal of contact positions to adapt the positioning shown in Minowa in order to meet the claim limitations (the claimed positioning of contacts is also taught by Lim). Therefore, the protrusion circled by the applicant in the arguments already meets the claim limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1-2, 4-5, 9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara et al. (US 8138872) in view of Minowa (US 2019/0304729) and Lim (US 8461950).
In re claim 1, Yoshihara, in figures 1-14, discloses an electromagnetic relay, comprising: a case (70) comprised of insulating material; a movable contact piece (63) including a movable contact, the movable contact piece being disposed inside the case; a fixed terminal (95,96) held by the case, the fixed terminal including a fixed contact (52,53) disposed to face the movable contact, a contact support portion (portion to which fixed contact attaches) configured to support the fixed contact, an extension portion extending from the contact support portion in a longitudinal direction of the movable contact piece, and a bent portion extending in a bent shape from the extension portion in a first direction from the fixed contact toward the movable contact, the bent portion overlapping the movable contact piece (as best seen in figure 2); a driving device disposed inside the case, the driving device being configured to move the movable contact piece in the first direction and a second direction from the movable contact toward the fixed contact (as seen in figure 2); and an insulating wall that is integral with the case, the insulating wall being disposed between the bent portion and the movable contact piece (as best seen in figure 2), the insulating wall configured to insulate the bent portion from an arc generated between the fixed contact and the movable contact (inherent function of the wall). Yoshihara does not teach the bent portion overlapping the movable contact piece when viewed from the claimed direction or the second surface being spaced apart from the case, or the protrusion extending in the claimed direction. Minowa however, teaches a similar device the bent portion overlapping the movable contact piece when viewed from the longitudinal direction of the movable contact piece (as best seen in figures 3 and 12) and wherein the contact support portion of the fixed terminal has a first surface on which the fixed contact is disposed and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the extension portion of the fixed terminal and the second surface being disposed in a same space as a space in which the movable contact piece is disposed (as seen in the figures). Minowa also teaches a protrusion extending in the first direction and having the claimed functionality (as circled in the annotated figure above). 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 teaching of a slimmer fixed contact arrangement taught by Minowa to the device of Yoshihara to reduce the size of the device, and to also have adapted the protrusions to provide additional support for the fixed contact and the extension portion (while keeping the positions of the fixed and movable contacts in the first direction as shown by Yoshihara). Lim teaches a similar device having a second surface being spaced apart from the case (see figures 8-9 for best view). 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 configuration with the second surface being spaced apart as taught by Lim for the device of Yoshihara/Minowa to improve cooling of the second surface.
In re claim 2, Yoshihara, in figures 1-14, discloses that the fixed terminal is held only by the case (as best shown in figure 2, this is also taught by the other references).
In re claim 4, Yoshihara, in figures 1-14, discloses that the case includes a case body (70) having an opening that is open on one side in a lateral direction of the movable contact piece; a lid (10) configured to close the opening; and a groove (as best seen in figure 4) formed in the case body and in which the fixed terminal is positioned, the groove extending from one side in the lateral direction of the movable contact piece, the groove being configured to receive the fixed terminal (as best seen in figures 2 and 4).
In re claim 5, Yoshihara, in figures 1-14, discloses that the fixed terminal further includes an external connecting portion disposed outside the case, and the case includes an inner support portion configured to support a first surface of the extending portion of the fixed terminal and an outer support portion (portions of 74,75) configured to support a second surface of the external connecting portion, the first surface facing the first direction inside the case, the second surface facing the first direction (as best seen in figure 2, in the same way as shown by the applicant).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara et al. (US 8138872) in view of Minowa, Lim, and Kabono (US 9412545).
In re claims 6-7, Yoshihara teaches the claimed device except for the magnet and the yoke. Kabono however, in figures 1-14, teaches a similar device having a magnet (19) and a yoke (10, 12c) positioned in a location similar to the claimed location with respect to the contacts. 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 a magnet and a yoke as taught by Kabono to the device of Yoshihara to control arcing.
In re claim 9, Yoshihara, in figures 1-14, discloses an inner member (55-57) disposed inside the case, wherein the inner member includes an opening that opens toward the second direction, the opening being configured to accommodate the movable contact piece, the opening being covered by the case.
In re claim 12, Yoshihara in view of Minowa and Lim discloses that the extension portion of the fixed terminal has a third surface facing the first direction inside the case and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface, the protrusion of the case is in contact with the fourth surface of extension portion of the fixed terminal (Minowa shows the protrusions in contact with the same surfaces as the claimed invention in the annotated figure above).
In re claim 13, Minowa discloses an inner support portion configured to support the third surface of the extension portion of the fixed terminal (this is shown in figures 3 and 12 where the inner support portion and the protrusion are positioned in contact with the opposite surfaces of the extension portion).
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