DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged. The applicant argues that claims 16-20 should be rejoined. This argument is persuasive, however, the limitations in claims 16-20 will not be given weight because they are directed to product by process limitations (see MPEP 2113).
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) 1-4, 6-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Enomoto (US 2015/0077202).
In re claim 1, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses a switching device comprising: a housing defining a volume (shown in figures 6a-b); one or more fixed contacts (32-33) disposed at least partially in the volume defined by the housing; a movable contact (35) disposed in the volume; and an actuator assembly configured to move the movable contact, the actuator assembly comprising: a shaft (8), and a carrier member coupling the movable contact to the shaft, the carrier member comprising: a movable contact retention member including a central portion (51), a first side portion (52a) extending from a first side of the central portion and a second side portion (52b) extending from a second side of the central portion, opposite the first side, wherein the first side portion and the second side portion are angled relative to the central portion and the first side portion is substantially parallel to the second side portion; and a coupler (7) coupling the central portion and the shaft (as seen in figure 4).
In re claim 2, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses that the movable contact retention member is metallic (stainless steel is discussed in paragraph 58); and the coupler insulates the movable contact retention member from the shaft (as seen in figure 4).
In re claim 3, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses that a first distal edge of the first side portion spaced from the central portion is spaced from a second distal edge of the second side portion spaced from the central portion; and the spacing defines an open top of the carrier member (as best seen in figures 4-5).
In re claim 4, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses that the shaft has a head (portion of the shaft extending into the coupler); the central portion of the movable contact retention member comprises a hole sized to provide a clearance for the head with the head disposed at least partially in the hole (as best seen in figure 4); and the coupler extends into the clearance between the head and the hole (as seen in figure 4).
In re claim 6, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses a biasing spring (36) disposed between the first side portion and the second side portion and biasing the movable contact away from coupler (as best seen in figure 4).
In re claim 7, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses the coupler comprises a protrusion (71) and the biasing spring is disposed over the protrusion.
In re claim 8, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses that the coupler is at least one of made of a polymeric material or is an overmold disposed over a portion of the shaft and a portion of the central portion of the movable contact retention member (resin is discussed in paragraph 56).
In re claim 9, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses that the movable contact retention member comprises sheet metal; and the first side portion and the second side portion are bent relative to the central portion (as best seen in figures 4-5).
In re claim 10, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses a plunger (25) coupled to a distal end of the shaft; and a coil (22) disposed proximate the plunger and selectively energized to move the plunger along an axial direction relative to the coil.
In re claim 11, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses an actuator assembly for use with an electrical device, the actuator assembly comprising: a shaft (8); a movable contact retention member comprising a central portion (51), a first side portion (52a) extending from a first side of the central portion and a second side portion (52b) extending from a second side of the central portion, opposite the first side, wherein the first side portion and the second side portion are angled relative to the central portion and the first side portion and the second side portion are substantially parallel to each other; and a coupler (7) coupling the central portion and the shaft.
In re claim 12, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses that the shaft has a head (portion of the shaft extending into the coupler); the central portion of the movable contact retention member comprises a hole sized to provide a clearance for the head with the head disposed at least partially in the hole (as best seen in figure 4); and the coupler extends into the clearance between the head and the hole (as seen in figure 4).
In re claim 15, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses that the movable contact retention member comprises sheet metal; and the first side portion and the second side portion are bent relative to the central portion (as best seen in figures 4-5).
In re claims 16-20, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that 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, i.e. actuator assembly, does not depend on its method of production as claimed in claims 16-20. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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) 5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (US 2015/0077202) in view of Minowa et al. (US 11289296).
In re claims 5 and 13, Enomoto discloses the claimed device except for a first end of the movable contact extends through the first opening and a second end of the movable contact extends through the second opening. Minowa however, teaches a similar device having configurations where the first end of the movable contact extends through the first opening and a second end of the movable contact extends through the second opening (see figures 10-15). 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 of the movable contact extending through the first and second openings as taught by Minowa to the device of Enomoto to improve movable contact retention.
In re claim 14, Enomoto, in figures 1-9, discloses a biasing spring (36) disposed between the first side portion and the second side portion and biasing the movable contact away from coupler (as best seen in figure 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
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