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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka et al. [US 2024/0120165]
Claim 1, Otsuka et al. discloses a switching device [1] comprising: a housing [2/25] defining a volume; one or more fixed contacts [10/11] disposed at least partially in the volume; a movable contact [12/13] disposed in the volume; a shaft [15] extending from a first end coupled to the movable contact to a second end [figure 1]; a plunger [23] coupled to the second end of the shaft, the plunger [23] comprising: a first surface [top; figure 5], a second surface [bottom; figure 5] spaced from the first surface along an axis, an axial opening [31] extending from the first surface to the second surface and configured to receive the shaft, and an undercut [32]formed in an inner surface defining the axial opening proximate the second surface [figure 5]; and a coil [21] proximate the plunger, the coil being configured to be selectively energized to alter a magnetic field and cause the plunger to move along the axis between a first position that configures the switching device in a closed configuration in which the movable contact contacts the one or more fixed contacts and a second position that configures the switching device in an open configuration in which the movable contact is spaced from the one or more fixed contacts [paragraphs 0064-0065], wherein the shaft [15] extends at least partially into the undercut [at 28] of the plunger to secure the plunger to the shaft [figure 5].
Claim 2, Otsuka et al. discloses the switching device of claim 1, wherein: the shaft [15] is disposed in the axial opening [31]; the second end of the shaft extends past the second surface of the plunger; and the second end [28] of the shaft [15] is altered to secure the shaft to the plunger [paragraph 0063].
Claim 3, Otsuka et al. discloses the switching device of claim 2, wherein: the second end [28] of the shaft [15] is altered to form an increased diameter portion of the shaft proximate the second end [paragraph 0063]; and the increased diameter portion is wider than the central opening [figure 5].
Claim 5, Otsuka et al. discloses the switching device of claim 2, wherein: the second end [28] of the shaft [15] is altered to cause a portion of the shaft to extend into the undercut [31] of the plunger [figure 5].
Claim 6, Otsuka et al. discloses the switching device of claim 2, wherein the second end [28] of the shaft [15] is secured to the plunger [15; paragraph 0063] using a radial forming process. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “a radial forming process” 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 7, Otsuka et al. discloses an actuator assembly for an electrical device, the actuator assembly comprising: a shaft [15] extending from a first end [adjacent to 8] to a second end [adjacent to 23] generally along an axis; a movable contact [12/13] coupled to the first end of the shaft; and a plunger [23] coupled to the second end of the shaft, the plunger [23] comprising: an axial opening [27] extending through the plunger, and an undercut [32] formed in an inner surface defining the axial opening, wherein: the shaft extends through the axial opening, and a portion of the shaft extends laterally into the undercut to secure the shaft and the plunger [figure 5; paragraph 0063].
Claim 8, Otsuka et al. discloses the actuator assembly of claim 7, wherein: the plunger [23] comprises a body that extends along the axis from a first surface [top; figure 5] to a second surface [bottom; figure 5]; and the undercut [31] is formed proximate the second surface.
Claim 14, Otsuka et al. discloses the actuator assembly of claim 8, wherein: the plunger [23] is secured to the shaft [15] with the first surface of the plunger [top; figure 5] at a predetermined distance from the first end of the shaft [figure 5].
Claims 15-17, 19 and 20 a method of forming an actuator assembly is inherent in the product structure of claims 1-3, 5-7, 8 and 14 above as outlined by Otsuka et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9-13 and 18 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