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 29, 30, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann Robert (IDS DE102016121345A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0098531), Figure 1.
Regarding claim 29, Robert discloses a power tractor comprising:
at least two contacts (3, 4, 8) in a switching chamber (see the drawing below),
wherein the at least two contacts (3, 4, 8) comprise a fixed contact (3, 4) and a movable contact (8),
wherein each of the contacts has (3, 4, 8) a contact surface (10) with at least one contact region (see the drawing below) on a contact side, and
wherein at least one of the contacts has at least one recess (see the drawing below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact side)][AltContent: textbox (Recess )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Switching chamber)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
143
223
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Robert discloses the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the recess comprises a concave fillet.
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 recess comprises a concave fillet for the purpose of relieving mechanical stress, preventing crack propagation, and improving molding or casting reliability, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 30, Robert discloses the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the fixed contact has a contact surface protruding in at least one lateral direction beyond the contact surface of the movable contact.
Zhang discloses a device comprising:
the fixed contact (21, 22) has a contact surface protruding in at least one lateral direction beyond the contact surface of the movable contact (10).
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 fixed contact (21, 22) has a contact surface protruding in at least one lateral direction beyond the contact surface of the movable contact (10) as taught by Zhang with Robert’s device in order to ensure reliable electrical connection, manage heat dissipation, and reduce wear.
Regarding claim 32, Robert discloses:
the at least one fixed contact (3, 4) has at least one recess (see the drawing below) on the contact side (see the drawing below).
PNG
media_image2.png
183
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 2 of Robert
Regarding claim 34, Robert discloses the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the recesses are arranged on the contact side in different lateral directions.
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 recesses are arranged on the contact side in different lateral directions for the purpose of suitability of the intended use, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann Robert (IDS DE102016121345A1) and Zhang et al. (US 2020/0098531), Figure 1, in view of Santarelli (US 5,424,700).
Regarding claim 31, Robert teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the at least one movable contact has at least one recess on the contact side.
Santarelli discloses a device comprising the movable contact (30) has at least one recess (48, 50) on the contact side (44, 46).
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 movable contact (30) has at least one recess (48, 50) on the contact side (44, 46) as taught by Santarelli with Robert’s device for the purpose of helping control, lengthen, and extinguish this arc safely to prevent equipment damage.
Regarding claim 33:
Robert discloses:
the fixed contact (3, 4) has at least one recess (see the drawing above).
Santarelli discloses:
the movable contact (30) has at least one recess (48, 50).
However, Robert and Santarelli fail to explicitly disclose a device having each of the contacts comprises at least one recess.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a device have the movable contact (30) has at least one recess (48, 50) on the contact side (44, 46) as taught by Santarelli with Robert’s device for the purpose of helping control, lengthen, and extinguish this arc safely to prevent equipment damage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS:
Page 5, applicant argued that:
“Neither Robert nor any of the other prior art documents shows a recess as claimed by amended independent claim 29 that is a concave fillet”.
This argument is not found to be persuasive, because 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 recess comprises a concave fillet for the purpose of relieving mechanical stress, preventing crack propagation, and improving molding or casting reliability, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20, 22 and 26-28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or suggest the switching device comprising:
Claim 15: a first outer edge adjacent to the contact surface and a second outer edge adjacent to an outer surface are formed by the recess, wherein the contact surface has a main extension plane, directions parallel to the main extension plane are lateral directions and directions perpendicular to the main extension plane are vertical directions, wherein a distance of the first outer edge and the second outer edge in a vertical direction is denoted by H and in a lateral direction is denoted by B, including along with the remaining limitations of claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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
June 19, 2026
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights