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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6-8, 11, 15-17, 19, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 11, and 19: every instance of “the short direction of the movable piece, of the first protruding portion” should be amended to clarify what “of the first protruding portion” means. As claimed, the “short direction” is only in reference to the “movable piece”, so it is unclear as to what “of the first protruding portion” is in reference to. Based on the figures, it is assumed that the claim is attempting to claim that the first slope is formed outside of both the first protruding direction and the short direction of the movable piece. Furthermore, it is unclear how a component can be outside of a direction. Clarification is required.
Claims 6, 15, and 22: every instance of “the fixed contact side” should be amended to recite “a fixed contact side” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 7 Lns.2-3: the clause “in the longer direction of the movable piece, of the accommodation recess” should be amended to clarify what “of the accommodation recess” means for similar reasons as those provided for the objection made to claims 3, 11, and 19. As claimed, the “longer direction” is only in reference to the “movable piece”, and thus it is not clear what “of the accommodation recess” is supposed to mean or refer to. Based on Applicant’s figures, it is believed that the claim is attempting to claim that the first protruding portion is disposed outside both the accommodation recess and the longer direction of the movable piece. Furthermore, it is unclear how a component can be outside of a direction. Clarification is required.
Claims 8 and 16-17: every instance of the clause “of the movable piece, of the projecting portion” should be amended to clarify what “of the projecting portion” means for similar reasons as those provided for the objection provided for claims 3, 11, and 19. As outlined above, the “short direction” is only in reference to the “movable piece” so it is unclear what “of the projecting portion” is supposed to mean or be in reference to. Based on Applicant’s figures, it is believed that the claim is attempting to claim that the “first recess” is provided on each side of the projecting portion and the short direction of the movable piece. Clarification is required.
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055) in view of Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation) and in further view of Namikawa (JP 2017208358) (referred to as Namikawa'358).
Regarding claim 1, Namikawa discloses (Figs.1-3 and 6):
A breaker comprising: a fixed contact (21); a movable piece (4), which has an elastic portion (43) being elastically deformable (See Abstract and [0024]) and a movable contact (3) in one end portion (Fig.1: 3 is provided at an end portion of 43) of the elastic portion (43), and which is for pressing the movable contact (3) against the fixed contact (21) to contact therewith (See Fig.2); a thermally-actuated element (5) which is deformed in response to temperature changes ([0021]) so as to shift the movable piece (4) from a conductive state (See Fig.2) in which the movable contact (3) contacts with the fixed contact (21) to a cut-off state (See Fig.3) in which the movable contact (3) is separated from the fixed contact (21); a first resin case (71) which has an accommodation recess (73) for accommodating the fixed contact (21), the movable piece (4) and the thermally-actuated element (5) (Accommodation Recess accommodating Fixed Contact, Movable Piece, and Thermally-Actuated Element: [0029]- since 21 is a part of 2, 73 will accommodate 21); and a second resin case (72) which is fixed to the first resin case (71) and covers the accommodation recess (73) (Figs.1-3: in the assembled state, 72 is fixed to 71 and covers 73), and a first recess (76) which is recessed in a thickness direction of the second resin case (71) (Fig.6: 76 is recessed in a thickness direction of 71).
However, Namikawa does not disclose:
Wherein the second resin case has an embedding portion in which a part of the movable piece is embedded, and the first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess, wherein the first protruding portion comprises a first side surface perpendicular to a short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece.
Namikawa'052 however teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the second resin case (7) has an embedding portion (Fig.1: portion of 7 where 43 is located) in which a part (43) of the movable piece (4) is embedded ([0048]).
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 Namikawa'052 to modify the device of Namikawa such that the second resin case has an embedding portion that embeds a part of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to provide a simpler and more efficient means of assembling the device (i.e., a separate bonding means for attaching the movable piece is no longer required since the movable piece can be molded into the case, and thus the second resin case can be bonded to the first resin case in fewer steps).
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
The first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess, wherein the first protruding portion comprises a first side surface perpendicular to a short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece.
Namikawa'358 however teaches (Fig.1):
The first resin case (81) has a first protruding portion (84) which is fitted into the first recess (76), wherein the first protruding portion (84) comprises a first side surface (See Figure Below) perpendicular to a short direction (See Figure Below) of the movable piece (4), and a second side surface (See Figure Below) perpendicular to a longer direction (See Figure Below) of the movable piece (4).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See next page→
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 Namikawa'358 to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the first resin case has a first protruding portion that is fitted into the first recess (i.e., in addition to 76 of Namikawa, provide the opening 76 taught by Namikawa'358 in 72 of Namikawa so that the combination of openings define the "first recess", and then provide 84 of Namikawa'358 to 71 of Namikawa as taught by [0086] of Namikawa'358, which teaches that the locations of 84 and 76 can be reversed), and such that the first protruding portions comprises a first side surface perpendicular to a short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to provide a more stable connection for the movable piece as taught by Namikawa'358 ([0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Namikawa further discloses:
Wherein the first resin case (71) has a second recess (See Figure Below) on the fixed contact side (See Figure Below), and the second resin case (72) has a second protruding portion (Fig.6: the protrusions on 72) which is fitted into the second recess (Figs.1 and 6: as shown, the protrusions on 72 fits into the second recess of 71).
See next page→
PNG
media_image2.png
948
901
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Namikawa’358 further teaches:
Wherein the first protruding portion (84) is disposed on an outside in the longer direction (See Figure of Claim 1) of the movable piece (4), of the accommodation recess (73) (Fig.1: in the assembled state, 84 is outside of 4, and thus outside of the longer direction of 4, and 73).
See next page→
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 Namikawa’358 to further modify the device of Namikawa such that the first protruding portion is disposed on an outside in the longer direction of the movable piece, of the accommodation recess, as claimed, in order to achieve the stable connection as outlined in claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055), Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation), and Namikawa (JP 2017208358) (referred to as Namikawa'358) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Namikawa (JP 2015141880) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) (referred to as Namikawa'880).
Regarding claim 8, modified Namikawa does not teach:
Wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion.
Namikawa’880 however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the second resin case (81) comprises a projecting portion (86) projecting toward the movable contact (3) from the embedding portion (Fig.2: portion of 9 embedded in 81) (Figs.1-2 and 4: 86 protrudes towards 3 from the embedded portion of 81), and the first recess (84) is formed on each side (See Fig.4) in the short direction (See Figure Below) of the movable piece (4), of the projecting portion (86).
See next page→
PNG
media_image3.png
574
851
media_image3.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 Namikawa'880 to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the second resin case has a projecting portion that projects toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and such that the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of regulating the shape of the thermally-actuated element when the thermally-actuated element is thermally deformed as taught by Namikawa'880 ([0034]).
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055) in view of Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation) in further view of Masuda (JP 2005108585) and in further view of Namikawa (JP 2015141880) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) (referred to as Namikawa'880).
Regarding claim 17, Namikawa discloses (Figs.1-3 and 6):
A breaker comprising: a fixed contact (21); a movable piece (4), which has an elastic portion (43) being elastically deformable (See Abstract and [0024]) and a movable contact (3) in one end portion (Fig.1: 3 is provided at an end portion of 43) of the elastic portion (43), and which is for pressing the movable contact (3) against the fixed contact (21) to contact therewith (See Fig.2); a thermally-actuated element (5) which is deformed in response to temperature changes ([0021]) so as to shift the movable piece (4) from a conductive state (See Fig.2) in which the movable contact (3) contacts with the fixed contact (21) to a cut-off state (See Fig.3) in which the movable contact (21) is separated from the fixed contact (21); a first resin case (71) which has an accommodation recess (73) for accommodating the fixed contact (21), the movable piece (4) and the thermally-actuated element (5); and a second resin case (72) which is fixed to the first resin case (71) and covers the accommodation recess (73) (Figs.1-3: in the assembled state, 72 is fixed to 71 and covers 73), and a first recess (76) which is recessed in a thickness direction of the second resin case (71) (Fig.6: 76 is recessed in a thickness direction of 71), and the first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess, wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion.
However, Namikawa does not disclose:
Wherein the second resin case has an embedding portion in which a part of the movable piece is embedded, and the first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess, wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion.
Namikawa'052 however teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the second resin case (7) has an embedding portion (Fig.1: portion of 7 where 43 is located) in which a part (43) of the movable piece (4) is embedded ([0048]).
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 Namikawa'052 to modify the device of Namikawa such that the second resin case has an embedding portion that embeds a part of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to provide a simpler and more efficient means of assembling the device (i.e., a separate bonding means for attaching the movable piece is no longer required since the movable piece can be molded into the case, and thus the second resin case can be bonded to the first resin case in fewer steps).
However, the above combination fails to teach:
The first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess, wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion.
Masuda however teaches (Figs.1 and 4):
The first resin case (1) has a first protruding portion (1b) which is fitted into the first recess (Fig.4: the interior space of 6 that has both 6a and 6b).
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 Masuda to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the first resin case has a first protruding portion that is fitted into the first recess, as claimed, in order to further improve the overall connection between the first resin case and the second resin case due to the increased number of joints being used to connect the first resin case to the second resin case (i.e., now both the first resin case and second resin case have a protruding portion that are utilized to couple the resin cases together, and thus increasing the total number of joints being utilized to hold the case together).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Wherein the second resin case comprises a projecting portion projecting toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion.
Namikawa’880 however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the second resin case (81) comprises a projecting portion (86) projecting toward the movable contact (3) from the embedding portion (Fig.2: portion of 9 embedded in 81) (Figs.1-2 and 4: 86 protrudes towards 3 from the embedded portion of 81), and the first recess (84) is formed on each side (See Fig.4) in the short direction (See Figure of Claim 8) of the movable piece (4), of the projecting portion (86).
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 Namikawa'880 to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the second resin case has a projecting portion that projects toward the movable contact from the embedding portion, and such that the first recess is formed on each side in the short direction of the movable piece, of the projecting portion, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of regulating the shape of the thermally-actuated element when the thermally-actuated element is thermally deformed as taught by Namikawa'880 ([0034]).
Regarding claim 22, Namikawa further discloses:
Wherein the first resin case (71) has a second recess (See Figure of Claim 6) on the fixed contact side (See Figure of Claim 6), and the second resin case (72) has a second protruding portion (Fig.6: the protrusions on 72) which is fitted into the second recess (Figs.1 and 6: as shown, the protrusions on 72 fits into the second recess of 71).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namikawa (US 20140334055) in view of Namikawa (WO 2020027052) (referred to as Namikawa'052) (refer to US 20210375568 for translation) in further view of Masuda (JP 2005108585) and in further view of Namikawa (JP 2015141880) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) (referred to as Namikawa'880), or alternatively over Namikawa in view of Namikawa’052, in further view of Masuda, in further view of Namikawa’880, and in further view of Oh (US 6046665).
Regarding claim 18, Masuda further teaches:
Wherein the first protruding portion (1b) comprises a first side surface (side surface of 1b) perpendicular to a short direction (See Figure Below) of the movable piece (4) (Fig.1: when looking at the cross-sectional view of 1b, the first side surface of 1b will be perpendicular to the short direction of 4).
See next page→
PNG
media_image4.png
772
709
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 Masuda to further modify the device of Namikawa such that the first protruding portion comprises a first side surface that is perpendicular to a short direction of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved connection as outlined in claim 17 above.
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
A second side surface perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece.
However, modifying the shape of the first protruding portion such that it has a desired shape (e.g., a rectangular/box-like shape) so that the first protruding portion has a first side surface that is perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface that is perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece, as claimed, would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date would do in order to provide an improved means of making the first protruding portion (i.e., it is known in the art that it is generally simpler to make rectangles/box-like structures in comparison to a cylindrical structure), since a change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
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).
Alternatively, Oh teaches (Fig.10):
The first protruding portion (168) comprising a box-like structure (See Fig.10).
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 Oh to further modify the device of modified Namikawa such that the first protruding portion has a box-like structure so that the first protruding portion comprises a first side surface that is perpendicular to the short direction of the movable piece, and a second side surface that is perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved manufacturing means as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 will be allowed, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Claims 3 and 19 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Claims 4-5 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon an allowable dependent claim that is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as respectively recited in independent claim 11, and at least in part, because claim 11 recites the limitations: “a first recess which is recessed in a thickness direction of the second resin case, and the first resin case has a first protruding portion which is fitted into the first recess, wherein the first resin case has a first slope formed on an outside in the short direction of the movable piece, of the first protruding portion, and the second resin case has a second slope corresponding to the first slope”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective independent claim 11, are believed to render said claim 11, and all claims depending therefrom (claims 12-16) allowable over the prior art references of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Namikawa (US 20140334055) is believed to be the closest prior art reference. As mapped above, Namikawa teaches a thermal circuit breaker that is similar to that of the instant application. However, Namikawa fails to disclose, at least, the aforementioned allowable limitations of independent claim 11. Even though there are prior art references that teach a first resin housing with a slope, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, teach and/or suggest a first resin housing with a slope that is “formed on an outside in the short direction of the movable piece, of the first protruding portion”, which then couples to a “second slope” of the second resin case as claimed. In other words, while there are prior art references that teaches a first resin housing with a “first slope”, and thus also suggesting a second resin housing with a “second slope”, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, teaches forming the “first slope” on “an outside in the short direction of the movable piece, of the first protruding portion” as respectively claimed in claim 11. Furthermore, absent impermissible hindsight, there appears to be no clear reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts to have the claimed “first slope”. For all of the reasons provided above, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed.
In the European Search Opinion filed in the European Patent Office (EPO) on 06/24/2025, the opinion rejects all of the claims. However, when looking at the rejection for claim 2 (which recites the same exact allowable subject matter of claim 11 of the instant application), the search opinion merely concludes that the limitation are obvious and that “complementary slopes are routinely applied by the skilled person to facilitate precise alignment and improve the fit between mating components” and that the modification required “reflects standard engineering practice and would be obvious to the skilled person seeking to optimize assembly and functionality”. In other words, the rejection is conclusory and provides no prior art that supports the conclusion that the modification is obvious. As outlined above, while it is true that providing complementary slopes is a known concept in the art, the Office notes that independent claim 11 requires the “first slope” to be in a precise location that is not taught or suggested by any of the cited prior art references (i.e., contrary to the Search Opinion’s rejection, the claim simply does not only require complementary slopes, claim 11 also requires for the “first slope” to be in a desired location, which is not taught and/or suggested by any of the prior art references). For all of the reasons provided above, the rejection made to claim 2 in the EPO Search Opinion is believed to be improper, and thus independent claim 11 is believed to be allowable over the EPO Search Opinion.
In the English Translation of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority filed in the WIPO Office on 12/05/2024, the action provides no rejection to claim 3 (which recites the allowable limitations of independent claim 11) since the action states that claim 3 is believed to be in condition for allowance. Therefore, independent claim 11 is also believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as provided in the English Translation of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (i.e., claim 11 of the instant application recites the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 3 of the WIPO equivalent of the instant application, and thus placing claim 11 in condition for allowance for the same reason as claim 3 was found to be in condition for allowance).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 3, and as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 17 and 19, and at least in part, because claim 3 and 19 recite the limitations: “wherein the first resin case has a first slope formed on an outside in the short direction of the movable piece, of the first protruding portion, and the second resin case has a second slope corresponding to the first slope”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claims 3 and 19, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 3, and the combined subject matter of claims 17 and 19, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
The Office notes that the limitations of claims 3 and 19 are identical to the allowable subject matter outlined for independent claim 11 above, and thus claims 3 and 19 are believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those provided for independent claim 11.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues.
See next page→
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200144009: teaches a thermal switch with a bimetal, PTC thermistor, movable component, and two resin casings.
US 9831056: teaches a thermal switch with a first resin case that has protruding portions.
US 20030122650: teaches a thermal switch in which a movable component is embedded into a housing.
US 6396381: teaches a thermal switch with a first resin case with a slant portion and a protrusion with two side surfaces, one surface that is perpendicular to a short direction of a movable piece and another surface that is perpendicular to a longer direction of the movable piece.
US 5229739: teaches a fuse device that has a rectangular protrusion portion.
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 2835