DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 2018/0144893) in view of CN 112908754 (attached with the IDS).
In re claim 1, Konishi, in figures 1-23, discloses an arc chamber comprising: a chamber space for accommodating a fixed contactor (21,22) and a movable contactor (23) that are electrically connected to an external power source or an external load (inherent functionality of the device); and a plurality of walls (12-15) for surrounding the chamber space from outside, wherein the plurality of walls comprise: a first wall for surrounding one side of the chamber space, wherein the first wall extends in one direction; a second wall for surrounding another side of the chamber space, wherein the second wall extends in the other direction while forming a predetermined angle with the first wall from an end of the first wall; a third wall for surrounding the still another side of the chamber space, wherein the third wall extends in the one direction while forming a predetermined angle with the second wall from an end of the second wall; and a fourth wall for surrounding the other side of the chamber space, wherein the fourth wall extends in the other direction while forming a predetermined angle with the third wall from an end of the third wall to the end of the first wall (as shown in the figures), wherein a plurality of fixed contactors are provided, and the plurality of fixed contactors are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in a direction facing one corner in which adjacent walls among the first wall, the second wall, the third wall, and the fourth wall, are continuous, and another corner disposed to face the one corner with the chamber space interposed therebetween (as seen in the figures). Konishi does not disclose the virtual straight line extending in the claimed direction. CN 112908754 however, in figures 3-13, discloses a similar device having a configuration with a virtual straight line extending between the plurality of the fixed contactors passes through the one corner and the another corner and forms one diagonal line of a cross-section of the arc chamber. 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 rearranged the positioning of the structures of Konishi to the arrangement shown by CN 112908754, where a virtual straight line extending between the plurality of the fixed contactors passes through the one corner and the another corner, to improve packaging efficiency.
In re claim 2, Konishi, in figures 1-23, discloses that the first wall and the third wall extend parallel to each other, and the second wall and the fourth wall extend parallel to each other (as seen in the figures).
In re claim 3, Konishi discloses the claimed device except for the walls all having the same length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made all of the walls be identical, 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. CN 112908754 also appears to disclose equal length walls.
In re claim 4, Konishi, in figures 1-23, discloses that the predetermined angle between the first and second walls, the predetermined angle between the second and third walls, the predetermined angle between the third and fourth walls, and the predetermined angle between the fourth and first walls are all the same (as seen in the figures).
In re claim 5, Konishi, in figures 1-23, discloses that the cross-section of the arc chamber in the horizontal direction has a diamond shape (as seen in the figures).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 2018/0144893) in view of CN 112908754 (attached with the IDS), and Hrnjack et al. (US 8669835).
In re claim 7, Konishi/CN 112908754, discloses the claimed device except for a plurality of sub connectors. Hrnjack however discloses a similar device having a plurality of sub connectors (215) are disposed to be spaced apart in a direction facing another corner in which adjacent walls among the first wall, the second wall, the third wall, the fourth wall are continuous, and the other corner disposed to face the still another corner with the chamber space interposed therebetween (all structures within the chamber face each other; sub connectors are spaced in a different direction than fixed contactors as seen in the figures).
In re claim 8, Hrnjack, in figures 1-10, discloses a virtual straight line extending between the plurality of the fixed contactors forms one diagonal line of a cross-section of the arc chamber, a virtual straight line extending between the plurality of the sub connectors forms another diagonal line of the cross-section of the arc chamber, and wherein, the one diagonal line and the other diagonal line are crossed while forming a predetermined angle (the fixed contactors and sub connectors are aligned in different planes as shown in the figures, thereby meeting the claim limitations).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrnjack et al. (US 8669835) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0327664), and CN 112908754 (attached with the IDS).
In re claim 10, Hrnjack, in figures 1-10, discloses a direct current (DC) relay, comprising: a fixed contactor electrically connected to an external power source or an external load (204,206); a movable contactor (216) provided to be lifted up and down and in contact with or spaced apart from the fixed contactor; a sub contact part (214) configured to be electrically connected to a core part and an external control power source (204) to control the core part; an arc chamber having a chamber space formed therein to accommodate the fixed contactor (as shown in figures 6 and 8-10), the movable contactor, and the sub contact part. Hrnjack does not show arc inducing parts. Lee however, in figures 1-8, discloses and an arc inducing part (202,204) coupled to the arc chamber outside the arc chamber to form a magnetic field for inducing an arc in the chamber space, wherein the arc chamber comprises: a pair of walls that are disposed to face the chamber space along one direction to partially surround the chamber space; and another pair of walls that are each continuous with the pair of walls, are disposed to face the chamber space along another direction, and partially surround the chamber space (as seen in the figures). 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 an arc inducing part as taught by Lee to the device of Hrnjack to provide improved arc control. Hrnjack/Lee does not disclose the virtual straight line extending in the claimed direction. CN 112908754 however, in figures 3-13, discloses a similar device having a configuration with a virtual straight line extending between the plurality of the fixed contactors passes through the one corner and the another corner, where the pair of walls are continuous, and forms one diagonal line of a cross-section of the arc chamber. 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 rearranged the positioning of the structures of Hrnjack/Lee to the arrangement shown by CN 112908754, where a virtual straight line extending between the plurality of the fixed contactors passes through the one corner and the another corner, to improve packaging efficiency.
In re claim 11, Hrnjack/Lee discloses the claimed device except for the walls all having the same length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made all of the walls be identical and have the same length/size, 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. CN 112908754 also appears to disclose equal length walls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15-16 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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