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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 03/25/2026 to the non-final Office action of 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 1-10 follows.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (JP 2021166177) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Copy and Translation)1 in view of Sakai (US 20200194204) .
Regarding claim 1, Kanematsu discloses (Figs.1-3 and 5-7):
A breaker device comprising: a holder (9) including a first internal space (S1) and a second internal space (S2) located below (See Fig.2) the first internal space (S1) in an up-down direction (D1); a conductor (4) located between the first internal space (S1) and the second internal space (S2) and held by the holder (9); a pusher (8) disposed in the first internal space (S1) (Pusher in First Internal Space: See Fig.2); and a drive source (7) configured to move the pusher (8) from the first internal space (S1) toward the second internal space (S2) (Figs.2 and 5-6, and [0013]: 7 moves 8 from S1 and towards S2), wherein: the conductor (4) includes: a first embedded portion (Fig.3: one of the 42's will define the "first embedded portion") held on the holder (9); a second embedded portion (Fig.3: the other one of the 42's will define the "second embedded portion") held on the holder (9); and a partition portion (41) disposed between (See Fig.3) the first embedded portion (Fig.3: one of the 42's will define the "first embedded portion") and the second embedded portion (Fig.3: the other one of the 42's will define the "second embedded portion") in a left-right directions (D2) crossing the up-down direction (D1), the pusher (8) is located above (See Fig.2) the partition portion (41) in the up-down direction (D1), the first embedded portion includes: a thin portion (440) connected to (See Fig.3) the partition portion (41); and a thick portion (See Figure Below) located opposite the partition portion (41) across the thin portion (440), a thickness of the thick portion of the first embedded portion (Fig.3: one of the 42's will define the "first embedded portion") in the up-down direction (D1) is greater than a thickness of the thin portion (440) in the up-down direction (D1) (Figs.2-3 and 5: due to the groove 44 in 440, the thick portion will have a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the thin portion in D1, which defines an up-down direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
916
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See next page→
However, Kanematsu does not disclose:
Spacing between an external form of the first internal space of and an external form of the pusher is between 0.2 mm and 1.2 mm, inclusive.
Sakai however teaches (Fig.1):
Spacing between an external form of the first internal space ([0033]: the “insulating closed space” will define the “first internal space”) of and an external form of the pusher (40) is between 0.2 mm and 1.2 mm, inclusive (Spacing Between External Form of First Internal Space and External Form of the Pusher being between 0.2 mm and 1.2 mm, inclusive: [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sakai to modify the device of Kanematsu such that there is a spacing between an external form of the first internal space of and an external form of the pusher, and the spacing being between 0.2 mm and 1.2 mm, inclusive, as claimed, in order to further improve the arc dissipation capabilities due to the minimal space as taught by Sakai ([0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Kanematsu further discloses:
Wherein in a state (See Fig.7) resulting from the partition portion (41) being cut off from the conductor (4) by the pusher (8) moving from the first internal space (S1) toward the second internal space (S2) by the drive source (7), the pusher (8) includes: a first opposing portion (See Figure Below) that opposes one of cut surfaces (See Figure Below) of the conductor (4); and a second opposing portion (See Figure Below) that opposes another of the cut surfaces (See Figure Below) of the conductor (4), a length of a line (See Figure Below) extending on an outer surface (See Figure Below) of the pusher (8) and connecting the first opposing portion and the second opposing portion when viewed from above in the up-down direction (D1) is defined as a first length (See Figure Below), a length of a line (See Figure Below) extending on the outer surface of the pusher (8) and connecting the first opposing portion, a bottom (See Figure Below) of the pusher (8), and the second opposing portion in the stated order is defined as a second length (See Figure Below), and the first length is greater (See Figure Below) than the second length.
PNG
media_image2.png
1024
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kanematsu further discloses:
Wherein in a state (See Fig.7) resulting from the partition portion (41) being cut off from the conductor (4) by the pusher (8) moving from the first internal space (S1) toward the second internal space (S2) by the drive source (7), the pusher (8) includes: a first opposing portion (See Figure of Claim 5) that opposes one of cut surfaces (See Figure of Claim 5) of the conductor (4); and a second opposing portion (See Figure of Claim 5) that opposes another of the cut surfaces (See Figure of Claim 5) of the conductor (4), a length of a line (See Figure of Claim 5) extending on an outer surface (outer surface of 8) of the pusher (8) and connecting the first opposing portion and the second opposing portion when viewed from above in the up-down direction (D1) is defined as a first length (See Figure of Claim 5), a length of a line (See Figure of Claim 5) extending on the outer surface (outer surface of 8) of the pusher (8) and connecting the first opposing portion, a bottom (See Figure Below) of the partition portion (41), and the second opposing portion in the stated order is defined as a third length (See Figure Below), and the first length is greater (See Figure Below) than the third length.
See next page→
PNG
media_image3.png
852
879
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, modifying the first length such that it has a desired length, including as claimed (i.e., greater than the third length), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to further improve the breaking capabilities and efficiency (i.e., by increasing the first length, the gap between the cut surfaces of the conductor also increases, and thus increasing the arc length and making it that much easier to quench and extinguish), since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Kanematsu further discloses:
Wherein the partition portion (41) includes a groove (44) located outside (See Fig.2) of the pusher (8) when viewed from above (Fig.2: the groove 44 is shown to be outside of 8 in the shown perspective, which also means that 44 will also be outside of 8 when viewed from above- i.e., looking at the device from 7 down to 96) in the up-down direction (D1).
Regarding claim 8, Kanematsu further discloses:
Wherein the thin portion (440) of the first embedded portion (Fig.3: one of the 42's will define the "first embedded portion") includes a groove (44) extending along an outer surface (outer surface of 8) of the pusher (8) when viewed from above (Fig.2: the groove 44 is shown to be outside of 8 in the shown perspective, which also means that 44 will also be outside of 8 and extending along the outer surface of 8 when viewed from above- i.e., looking at the device from 7 down to 96) in the up-down direction (D1).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (JP 2021166177) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Copy and Translation) and Sakai (US 20200194204) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haba (US 20220384130).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kanematsu does not teach:
Wherein a lower surface of the thin portion is located at a level higher than a level of a lower surface of the thick portion.
Haba however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein a lower surface (See Figure Below) of the thin portion (See Figure Below) is located at a level higher (See Figure Below) than a level of a lower surface (See Figure Below) of the thick portion (See Figure Below).
See next page→
PNG
media_image4.png
796
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Haba to further modify the device of modified Kanematsu such that a lower surface of the thin portion is located at a level higher than a level of a lower surface of the thick portion, as claimed, in order to further optimize the breaking capabilities (i.e., due to the lower surface of the thin portion being higher than the lower surface of the thick portion, the thickness of the thin portion further decreases, and thus making it easier for the pusher to separate the partition portion from the thing portion and thick portion when actuated by the drive source).
Regarding claim 3, Kanematsu further discloses:
Wherein a width (See Figure of Claim 1) of the thin portion (440) in a front-back direction (See Figure of Claim 1) crossing the left-right direction (D2) and the up-down direction (D1) is less than a width (See Figure of Claim 1) of the thick portion (See Figure of Claim 1) in the front-back direction (See Figure of Claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kanematsu does not teach:
Wherein the conductor further includes a border portion connecting the thick portion and the thin portion, and a lower surface of the border portion is inclined further downward with increasing distance from the thin portion.
Haba however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein the conductor (18) further includes a border portion (See Figure of Claim 2) connecting the thick portion (See Figure of Claim 2) and the thin portion (See Figure of Claim 2) (See Figure of Claim 2: the border portion is located between the thick portion and the thin portion, and will thus connect the thick portion and the thin portion together), and a lower surface (See Figure of Claim 2: lower surface of the border portion) of the border portion is inclined further downward with increasing distance from the thin portion (See Figure of Claim 2: from the thin portion, which is defined by the portion formed between the two cutouts on 18, inclines downward to form a greater thickness to define the border portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Haba to further modify the device of modified Kanematsu such that the conductor includes a border portion connecting the thick portion and the thin portion, and such that a lower surface of the border portion is inclined further downward with increasing distance from the thin portion, as claimed, in order to further optimize the breaking capabilities (i.e., due to the border portion having a lower surface that is inclined further downward with increasing distance from the thin portion, the overall thickness of the thin portion can further be narrowed, and thus making it easier for the punch to break through the partition portion when actuated by the drive source).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu (JP 2021166177) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Copy and Translation) and Sakai (US 20200194204) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sakai (US 20190206645) (of record, cited in the IDS) (Referred to as Sakai’645).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kanematsu does not teach:
Wherein a bottom of the pusher includes, near the groove, a projection projecting outward.
Sakai’645 however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein a bottom (bottom of 40) of the pusher (40) includes, near the groove (Fig.1: the grooves formed on 53), a projection (outer edge of 42) projecting outward (Fig.1: the outer edge/circumference of 42 that defines the projection projects outward from 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sakai’645 to further modify the device of modified Kanematsu such that a bottom of the pusher includes, near the groove, a projection that projects outward, as claimed, in order to further optimize the breaking capabilities of the pusher due to the projection creating a greater contact area between the pusher and the partition portion.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kanematsu does not teach:
Wherein a length of the projection in the up-down direction is less than the thickness of the thin portion in the up-down direction.
However, modifying the size of the projection such that it has a desired length, including as claimed (i.e., the length of the projection in the up-down direction being less than the thickness of the thin portion in the up-down direction), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to achieve the optimized breaking capabilities as outlined in claim 9 above, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, but notes that Applicant's arguments are directed to the claims as amended, and are thus moot since the rejection has been modified to meet the limitations of the amended claims (See rejection above).
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 STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
See next page→
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 Examiner Note: although a translation of Kanematsu was provided with the IDS of 01/23/2025, all paragraph citations are with respect to the attached translation provided by the Office.
Prosecution Insights