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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 and 03/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruma et al. [US 2015/0194284 A1] in view of An [US 2016/0093458A1].
Claim 1, Uruma et al. discloses a magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact [10], comprising: a contact assembly [3], comprising a movable contact piece [35] and a pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals [33], the movable contact piece configured to contact with or separate from the pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals; an anti-short circuit assembly [61/62], which is at least disposed at a side of the movable contact piece facing the stationary contact lead-out terminals, and is configured to generate suction force in the event of a faulty high current in the movable contact piece for resisting an electrodynamic repulsion force between the movable contact piece and the stationary contact lead-out terminals [paragraph 0071]; a permanent magnet [46], disposed around the contact assembly [3; figure 3] to achieve arc extinguishing by using a magnetic field formed by the permanent magnet [paragraph 0081].
Uruma et al. fails to teach a first magnetic shielding member, disposed at an outside of a stationary contact lead-out terminal for shielding a magnetic field generated by the stationary contact lead-out terminal when energized; wherein the first magnetic shielding member is configured to absorb the magnetic field transmitted from the permanent magnet to the anti-short circuit assembly.
An teaches a magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact [figures 4-6] comprising: a contact assembly [figure 4], comprising a movable contact piece [30] and a pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals [11/16], the movable contact piece configured to contact with or separate from the pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals; and a first magnetic shielding member [21/26], disposed at an outside of a stationary contact lead-out terminal [11/16] for shielding a magnetic field generated by the stationary contact lead-out terminal when energized [figure 6]; wherein the first magnetic shielding member is configured to absorb the magnetic field transmitted from the permanent magnet to the anti-short circuit assembly [paragraph 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first magnetic shielding member of An in the magnetic shielding structure of Uruma et al. in order to reduce the magnetic flux acting to separate the movable contacts from the fixed contacts [An paragraph 0041].
Claim 4, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 1, wherein An teaches that an outer wall [13/18] of the stationary contact lead-out terminal [11/16] is provided with a limiting portion for limiting the first magnetic shielding member [21; figure 4].
Claim 7, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 1, wherein An teaches that the stationary contact lead-out terminal [11/16] and the first magnetic shielding member [21] are fixed [figure 4] by welding, screwing or snapping. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “fixed by welding, screwing or snapping” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Claim 8, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 1, wherein An teaches that the first magnetic shielding member is a closed ring structure annularly disposed around the stationary contact lead-out terminal; or, the first magnetic shielding member [21] is distributed around the stationary contact lead-out [11/16] terminal at intervals in a ring shape [figure 4].
Claim 9, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 1, wherein An teaches that a magnetic permeability of the first magnetic shielding member [21] is greater than a magnetic permeability of the stationary contact lead-out terminal [21 can be formed from iron and directs the magnetic field around the terminal; paragraph 0041].
Claim 10, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 1, wherein Uruma et al. discloses a yoke clamp [47] is provided outside the permanent magnet [46].
Claim 11, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 1, wherein Uruma et al. discloses that the anti-short circuit assembly [61/62] comprising: an upper magnetizer [61], disposed at a side of the movable contact piece [35] near the stationary contact lead-out terminals [33; figure 2 and 6]; and a lower magnetizer [62], disposed at a side of the movable contact piece far away from the stationary contact lead-out terminals [figure 2]; wherein the upper magnetizer and the lower magnetizer are configured to form a magnetic circuit therebetween [paragraph 0071].
Claim 14, Uruma et al. discloses a relay [10], comprising a magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact, and the magnetic shielding structure comprising: a contact assembly [3], comprising a movable contact piece [15] and a pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals [33], the movable contact piece configured to contact or separate from the pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals; an anti-short circuit assembly [61/62], which is at least disposed at a side of the movable contact piece facing the stationary contact lead-out terminals, and is configured to generate suction force in the event of a faulty high current in the movable contact piece for resisting an electrodynamic repulsion force between the movable contact piece and the stationary contact lead-out terminals [paragraph 0071]; a permanent magnet [46], disposed around the contact assembly to achieve arc extinguishing by using a magnetic field formed by the permanent magnet [paragraph 0081];
Uruma et al. fails to teach a first magnetic shielding member, disposed at an outside of a stationary contact lead-out terminal for shielding a magnetic field generated by the stationary contact lead-out terminal when energized; wherein the first magnetic shielding member is configured to absorb the magnetic field transmitted from the permanent magnet to the anti-short circuit assembly.
An teaches a magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact [figures 4-6] comprising: a contact assembly [figure 4], comprising a movable contact piece [30] and a pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals [11/16], the movable contact piece configured to contact with or separate from the pair of stationary contact lead-out terminals; and a first magnetic shielding member [21/26], disposed at an outside of a stationary contact lead-out terminal [11/16] for shielding a magnetic field generated by the stationary contact lead-out terminal when energized [figure 6]; wherein the first magnetic shielding member is configured to absorb the magnetic field transmitted from the permanent magnet to the anti-short circuit assembly [paragraph 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first magnetic shielding member of An in the relay of Uruma et al. in order to reduce the magnetic flux acting to separate the movable contacts from the fixed contacts [An paragraph 0041].
Claim 15, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the relay according to claim 14, wherein Uruma et al. further comprising a contact container [31], wherein the stationary contact lead-out terminals [33] are provided on the contact container [31]and are configured to at least partially extend into the contact container [figure 2], and the first magnetic shielding member of the magnetic shielding structure for the relay contact is disposed inside the contact container [attached to 31 above the contact 32 as taught by An], the permanent magnet [46] is disposed outside the contact container [figure 3].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruma et al. [US 2015/0194284 A1] in view of An [US 2016/0093458A1] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo [US 12,068,121].
Claim 2, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 1, wherein Uruma et al. discloses that the permanent magnet [46] is disposed along the longitudinal direction of the movable contact piece [35; figures 2b, 3 and 5].
Uruma et al. as modified fails to teach that the permanent magnet is disposed along a width direction of the movable contact piece.
Yoo teaches that a permanent magnet arrangement around a contact assembly can be arranged in various orientations including along the longitudinal direction of a movable contact piece [430; figure 11] as disclosed by Uruma et al. as modified and along a width direction of the movable contact piece [35; figures 1, 6 and 7] in order to suppress a contact arc during actuation [abs].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the permanent magnet of Uruma et al. as modified along a width direction of the movable contact piece as taught by Yoo in order to change the direction in which the arc is directed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 3, Uruma et al. as modified discloses the magnetic shielding structure for a relay contact according to claim 2, wherein Uruma et al. discloses that there are two permanent magnets [46; figures 2b and 3], and the two permanent magnets are respectively disposed on both sides of the movable contact piece [35] along a length direction of the movable contact piece [figures 2b, 3 and 5] and are disposed in correspondence with two first magnetic shielding members[An figure 5, the permanent magnets 41/142 are disposed along the width of the movable contact 30; therefor the combination would yield the same arrangement when the first magnetic shielding member is included]; along the length direction of the movable contact piece, the two permanent magnets, the two first magnetic shielding members and the anti-short circuit assembly are disposed in an order of one of the two permanent magnets, one of the two first magnetic shielding members, the anti-short circuit assembly, another one of the two first magnetic shielding members and another one of the two permanent magnets [adding the first magnetic shielding member to Urma et al. yields the claimed order], and a direction of a magnetic pole of each permanent magnet is arranged along the length direction of the movable contact piece [figure 5].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 12 and 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 S Ismail can be reached at (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 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837