DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Montaigu et al. (US 5892422).
In re claim 1, Montaigu discloses a switching device, comprising a first and a second fixed contact (50-52), a contact bridge (54), a first and a second movable contact (ends of the bridge) arranged at the contact bridge, a contact spring (around 58), a contact bridge carrier (31) which is movable and is coupled to the contact bridge via the contact spring, a magnetic drive assembly with an electric coil (16), a magnetic core (22) and an armature (12), wherein the armature is movable and is connected to the contact bridge carrier, a housing and at least one stopper (92) connected to the housing and configured to limit a movement of the contact bridge in case of a short circuit (as seen in the figure; a short circuit case is inherently able to be present in an electrical circuit).
In re claim 2, Montaigu discloses that the switching device is configured that a current flowing in case of a short circuit through the first fixed contact, the first movable contact, the contact bridge, the second movable contact and the second fixed contact and a movement of the contact bridge carrier causes a movement of the contact bridge from an on-position of the contact bridge in a switched-on state of the switching device to the at least one stopper (this is inherent functionality of the disclosed structure when the contact bridge disconnects from the fixed contacts).
In re claim 3, Montaigu discloses that a maximum clearing distance is a maximum distance of a movement of the contact bridge from an on-position of the contact bridge in a switched-on state of the switching device to the at least one stopper in case of a short circuit (the maximum distance is the distance shown in the figure).
In re claim 5, Montaigu discloses that the contact bridge carrier and the contact bridge are configured such that a relative movement of the contact bridge in relation to the contact bridge carrier from an on-position of the contact bridge in a switched-on state of the switching device is limited to an end stop distance (this distance is shown in the figure and corresponds to distance F shown by the applicant) in case of a short circuit.
In re claim 6, Montaigu discloses that the relative movement of the contact bridge in relation to the contact bridge carrier from the on-position of the contact bridge in the switched-on state of the switching device is limited by a block length of the contact spring (this is the length of the spring shown in the figure).
In re claim 7, Montaigu discloses that the end stop distance depends on the maximum clearing distance (in the same way as shown by the applicant).
In re claim 9, Montaigu discloses a clearing distance is the distance of a movement of the contact bridge from an on-position of the contact bridge in a switched-on state of the switching device to an off-position of the contact bridge in a switched-off state of the switching device in the absence of a short circuit (the contact bridge moves in the same way as in the invention and thus inherently includes the claimed distance; any distance between the on position and the position shown in the figure meets this limitation).
In re claim 10, Montaigu discloses that the maximum clearing distance (shown in the figure) is larger than the clearing distance (any distance that is not in the on position and not the maximum clearing distance shown in the figure).
In re claim 12, Montaigu discloses that the contact bridge carrier comprises a limiter (positioned between spring 53 and the bridge), and wherein the limiter is configured to limit a movement of the contact bridge inside the contact bridge carrier towards the first and the second fixed contact (as shown in the figure).
In re claim 13, Montaigu discloses that the switching device includes a return spring (53), wherein one side of the return spring is in contact with the housing and the other side of the return spring is coupled to the contact bridge carrier, and wherein the return spring is configured to provide a force to the contact bridge carrier in a direction away from the first and the second fixed contact (as seen in the figure).
In re claim 15, Montaigu discloses that the housing is configured to limit a movement of the armature in case of a short circuit (this is inherent because all structures in the device are connected to the housing; without being limited by the housing the armature would not be able to be retained in the device, and the device would become useless).
In re claim 16, the claimed method of limiting movement by the stopper is necessitated by the device disclosed in claim 1 above.
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, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montaigu et al. (US 5892422).
In re claim 4, Montaigu discloses the housing and the stopper but does not disclose that they are made of the same material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the housing material of Montaigu to also make the stopper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In re claim 8, Montaigu discloses the claimed device including the end stop distance but does not disclose the clamed range of the distance values. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed range of distance values, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 19, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 11, Montaigu discloses the claimed device, but does not disclose the clamed range of the clearing distance values. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed range of clearing distance values, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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
Prosecution Insights