DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, Figures 1-4, Claims 1, 4, and 7-9 in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement is not made in view of prior art. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement is made before a search of prior art is conducted, and thus no prior art was found at the time of the restriction. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Minowa (US 2019/0311871).
In re claim 1, Minowa, in figures 1-5, discloses an electromagnetic relay comprising: a fixed terminal including a fixed contact (33); a movable contact piece including a movable contact (34) opposing the fixed contact; a contact case configured to accommodate the fixed contact and the movable contact piece; and a drive device including a fixed iron core (57) fastened to the contact case, and a yoke (53) to be held between the fixed iron core and the contact case. With respect to the screw fastening process, 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 relay, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. screw fastening. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claims 7-9, Minowa, in figures 1-5, discloses that the yoke includes a plurality of protrusions configured to prevent the contact case from rotating and the contact case includes a locking recess to be locked by the plurality of protrusions (as seen in annotated figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minowa (US 2019/0311871) in view of Meisiek (US 6339366).
In re claim 4, Minowa, in figures 1-5, discloses the fixed iron core includes a large-diameter portion, a small-diameter portion smaller in diameter than the large-diameter portion (as seen in figures 2-3). Minowa does not teach the screw portions on the contact case or the small diameter portion. Meisiek however, teaches an electromagnetic actuator device having a small diameter portion of a core (15) having a male thread portion (see abstract) on the outer surface being screwed to a female portion of a case (as seen in the figure). 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 screw connection as taught by Meisiek to connect the core and housing of Minowa to improve retention strength.
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