DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that there is no connection between the transmission parts and the elastic parts in the prior art and shows figures 10 and 12c to support this argument. This argument is not persuasive because figure 12b clearly shows the claimed connections. The shown device would be inoperable if the transmission parts were not able to be connected to the elastic parts of the prior art. The claims do not limit connections to specific positions of the transmission parts, such as positions shown in annotated figures cited in the arguments.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Specifically it is not clear what is an srelay and how it is different from a relay. Title lists several inventions, instead of one. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claim 9, there is no clear support for the newly added limitations directed to separation of layers. Paragraph 56 appears to only have support for the layers to be not connected in the same way as the ends (such as through welding). For this reason this limitation is considered to be new matter and is not given weight.
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) 1-2, 4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Connell et al. (GB 2418780).
In re claim 1, Connell, in figures 1-12, discloses a relay, comprising: an electromagnet apparatus, a first transmission part (one of 122,123, 335,336), a second transmission part (one of 122,123, 335,336), a first elastic part, a second elastic part, (one of 11,15,111,115,201,205,301,305) a first movable contact, a second movable contact (14,18,114,118,204,208,304,308) a first and second static contact (13,17,113,117,203,207,303,307), wherein the first transmission part connects the electromagnet apparatus to the first elastic part, the first movable contact is disposed at an end that is of the first elastic part and that is close to the first transmission part relative to the second transmission part, and the second static contact is disposed at an end that is of the first elastic part and that is away from the first transmission part (as seen in figures 10-12); the second transmission part connects the electromagnet apparatus to the second elastic part, the first static contact is disposed at an end that is of the second elastic part and that is away from the second transmission part, and the second movable contact is disposed at an end that is of the second elastic part and that is close to the second transmission part relative to the first transmission part (as seen in figures 10-12); and the electromagnet apparatus is configured to drive the first transmission part and the second transmission part to move, to control the first movable contact to be in contact with or be separated from the first static contact and the second movable contact to be in contact with or be separated from the second static contact (inherent function of the shown device).
In re claim 2, Connell, in figures 1-12, discloses that the electromagnet apparatus comprises an armature (H armature is shown in figures 10-12) and a rotating shaft (pivot 108, 233, or 333, or portion of the armature around the pivot point); the armature and the rotating shaft form a rotating connection; the first transmission part and the second transmission part are respectively fixed at two opposite ends of the armature, and are respectively located on two opposite sides of the rotating shaft (as seen in the figures); and the armature is configured to drive the first transmission part and the second transmission part to rotate around the rotating shaft.
In re claim 4, Connell, in figures 1-12, discloses the first transmission part and the second transmission part are respectively located on two opposite sides of a same axis center, the electromagnet apparatus is configured to drive the first transmission part and the second transmission part to rotate around the same axis center, and a distance from an end that is of the first transmission part and that is connected to the first elastic part to the same axis center is greater than a distance from an end that is of the second transmission part and that is connected to the second elastic part to the same axis center (this is best seen in figure 12); and an opening distance between the first movable contact and the first static contact is greater than an opening distance between the second movable contact and the second static contact (figure 12a shows this positioning).
In re claim 7, Connell, in figures 1-12, discloses that quantities of first elastic parts and second elastic parts are both n, n is an integer greater than or equal to 3 (at least 4 elastic parts are shown in figures 3-4), the first movable contact and the second static contact are disposed on each first elastic part, the second movable contact and the first static contact are disposed on each second elastic part, and the first movable contact and the second static contact on one first elastic part respectively correspond to the second movable contact and the second static contact on one second elastic part (as shown in the figures).
In re claim 8, Connell, in figures 1-12, discloses there are a plurality of first movable contacts and a plurality of first static contacts, and each first movable contact in the plurality of first movable contacts is configured to be in contact with a respective first static contact in the plurality of first static contacts (figures 3-4 show a plurality of both first and second moving and static contacts behaving in the claimed way).
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) 3, 5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (GB 2418780).
In re claim 3, Connell discloses the claimed device except for the relative distance between the contacts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen optimal distance values between the movable and static contacts of Connell since such a modification is routine for one of ordinary skill in the art given that all of the structural features are present In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). (furthermore, it is common knowledge in the art that in a parallel contact relay structure having different gap sizes allows improved arc control by making the arc pass through the smaller gap).
In re claim 5, Connell discloses the claimed device except for different resistance values of the first and second contacts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the resistance values of the first and second contacts different, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, it is common knowledge in the art to make parallel branches of a circuit have different resistance in order to control current flow and temperature of each portion of the circuit based on design choice.
In re claim 9, Connell discloses the claimed device except for a plurality of layers of elastic parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used additional elastic parts/layers in the elastic parts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 56 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. In fact, it appears that this is an alternative species that is optional and is not required for proper functionality.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (GB 2418780) in view of Rakus et al (US 7105764).
In re claim 6, Connell teaches the claimed device including the cavity except for the arc chute. Rakus however teaches an arc chute (89) and a channel (92) positioned in the claimed positions within a similar device. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the arc chute and channel as taught by Rakus to the device of Connell in order to improve arc control.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (GB 2418780) in view of Baurand et al. (US 7479858).
In re claim 10, Connell, in figures 1-12, discloses a relay, comprising: an electromagnet apparatus, a first transmission part (one of 122,123, 335,336), a second transmission part (one of 122,123, 335,336), a first elastic part, a second elastic part, (one of 11,15,111,115,201,205,301,305) a first movable contact, a second movable contact (14,18,114,118,204,208,304,308) a first and second static contact (13,17,113,117,203,207,303,307), wherein the first transmission part connects the electromagnet apparatus to the first elastic part, the first movable contact is disposed at an end that is of the first elastic part and that is close to the first transmission part relative to the second transmission part, and the second static contact is disposed at an end that is of the first elastic part and that is away from the first transmission part (as seen in figures 10-12); the second transmission part connects the electromagnet apparatus to the second elastic part, the first static contact is disposed at an end that is of the second elastic part and that is away from the second transmission part, and the second movable contact is disposed at an end that is of the second elastic part and that is close to the second transmission part relative to the first transmission part (as seen in figures 10-12); and the electromagnet apparatus is configured to drive the first transmission part and the second transmission part to move, to control the first movable contact to be in contact with or be separated from the first static contact and the second movable contact to be in contact with or be separated from the second static contact (inherent function of the shown device). Connell does not explicitly show a power conversion circuit. Baurand however, in figures 1-6 discloses a relay having a power conversion circuit (30) and a circuit board (a circuit board is not shown but is inherently present to hold the power conversion circuit components). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the power conversion circuit as taught by Baurand to the device of Connell to power the relay.
In re claim 11, Baurand discloses a direct current power supply, wherein the direct current power supply is electrically connected to a power conversion circuit in the power device (this is best disclosed in claim 2). Using the device in a power supply system is intended use of the device and is thus not given weight. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In re claims 12-14, the claimed method steps are necessitated by the device disclosed in claims 10 and 1-9 above.
In re claim 15, Baurand discloses that the power conversion circuit is configured to perform at least one of voltage conversion, frequency conversion, phase conversion, or direct current-to-alternating current conversion (as discussed in claim 2 and corresponding section of the specification).
In re claim 16, Baurand discloses a controller (33,34) configured to generate control signals for the relay, wherein the controller is electrically connected to the circuit board (it is inherent that control circuit components are positioned on the circuit board).
In re claim 17, Baurand discloses that the controller is configured to generate a first control signal to trigger the relay to turn on and a second control signal to trigger the relay to turn off (as discussed in claim 1).
In re claim 18, Baurand discloses that the power is converted but does not explicitly discuss the claimed types of converters. The claimed converter types however, are well known in the art and would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use in the device of Connell/Baurand as a matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.03).
In re claim 19, Connell discloses the claimed device except for the relative distance between the contacts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen optimal distance values between the movable and static contacts of Connell since such a modification is routine for one of ordinary skill in the art given that all of the structural features are present In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). (furthermore, it is common knowledge in the art that in a parallel contact relay structure having different gap sizes allows improved arc control by making the arc pass through the smaller gap).
In re claim 20, Connell discloses the claimed device except for different resistance values of the first and second contacts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the resistance values of the first and second contacts different, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, it is common knowledge in the art to make parallel branches of a circuit have different resistance in order to control current flow and temperature of each portion of the circuit based on design choice.
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 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