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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2024 and 09/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the groove" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-13 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 4.
Claim 5, “the sidewall” line 6, but depends from claim 4 which defines plural side walls. It is unclear if “the sidewall” from claim 5 refers to a single sidewall, and if so which one, or all the sidewalls? Clarification of is required.
Claims 6, 7 and 11 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 5.
Claim 7, the structure of the notch/notes is unclear as both plural notches and a singular notch with as recited throughout the claim. Switching from singular to plural without further explanation of the notch(es) results in an indefinite claim structure. Clarification of is required.
with proper identification
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the armature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the third support block" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the coil" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the support block" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakanishi [JP H0612957 A], applicant cited prior art.
Claim 1, Nakanishi discloses a high-frequency relay [figure 1] with excellent shielding performance, comprising: a magnetic circuit part [20], a base part [10/11/12/13/18a-18e; Figure 8], and a movable contact part [30], the magnetic circuit part and the movable contact part being respectively mounted on the base part and achieving mutual linkage [figure 1], wherein: the base part [10] comprises an upper grounding shield piece [50], a lower grounding shield piece [19a/19b/19c/18], at least two static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13], and a plastic body [10] combining the lower grounding shield piece [19a/19b/19c/18] and the at least two static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] into an integrated structure [abs; figure 8] through an injection molding; each of the static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] has an exposed portion exposed from a surface of the plastic body [10; figure 8], and the exposed portion has a contact for contacting with the movable contact part [figure 10], a top surface of the contact is higher than an upper surface of the lower grounding shield piece in a height direction [figures 8 and 11, the top portions of 11, 12 and 13 are clearly exposed for contact with movable contacts 37a and 38a]; and the upper grounding shield piece [50] is mounted on the plastic body [10] and is higher than the top surface of the contact in the height direction [figure 10] and is grounded through the lower grounding shield piece [18, highlighted portion of page 5], so that a shielding space [shown in figure 10 containing contacts 37a and 38a] is formed in the base part, and the shielding space is constituted by a gap between the upper grounding shield piece and the lower grounding shield piece and is capable of accommodating a bridge-type movable contact piece [37a and 38a] in the movable contact part. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “injection molding” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Claim 2, Nakanishi discloses the high-frequency relay with excellent shielding performance according to claim 1, wherein the plastic body [10] is provided with a groove [housing 11, 12 and 13], the exposed portion of the static contact piece [11, 12 and 13] is at a bottom surface of the groove and is exposed from a bottom surface of the groove of the plastic body [figures 8 and 10], the upper grounding shield piece [50] is mounted in the groove of the plastic body [figure 10].
Claim 3, Nakanishi discloses the high-frequency relay with excellent shielding performance according to claim 1, wherein the lower grounding shield piece [19a/19b/19c/18] and the at least two static contact [11, 12 and 13] pieces are formed by stamping one strip material, and the lower grounding shield piece [19a/19b/19c/18] and the static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] are combined into the plastic body co-planarly through the injection molding [figures 8 and 10], so that the lower grounding shield piece and the static contact pieces form a position complementarity in a plane area [figures 8 and 10]. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “formed by stamping one strip material” and “injection molding” are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Claim 4, as best understood, Nakanishi discloses the high-frequency relay with excellent shielding performance according to claim 3, wherein the plastic body [10] is a block in a cuboid shape [figure 8], a periphery of the plastic body extends upward to form side walls and the side walls form the groove [figures 8 and 10]; the lower grounding shield piece [19a/19b/19c/18] and at least two static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] are co-planarly exposed from the bottom surface of the groove of the plastic body [figures 8 and 10].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 8, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi [JP H0612957 A], applicant cited prior art, in view of Shinoura et al. [US 6,861,932].
Claim 4, as best understood, Nakanishi discloses the high-frequency relay with excellent shielding performance according to claim 3, wherein the plastic body [10] is a block in a cuboid shape [figures 8 and 10]; the lower grounding shield piece [18] and at least two static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] are co-planarly exposed from the bottom surface of the groove of the plastic body [figures 8 and 10].
Nakanishi fails to teach that a periphery of the plastic body extends upward to form side walls and the side walls form the groove.
Shinoura et al. teaches a shieled relay wherein a base [4] wherein a plastic body is a block in a cuboid shape [figure 2], a periphery of the plastic body extends upward to form side walls and the side walls [figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sidewalls of the base of Shinoura et al. in the high-frequency relay of Nakanishi in order to help align the base with the other components of the relay.
Claim 8, as best understood, Nakanishi discloses the high-frequency relay with excellent shielding performance according to claim 4, wherein the lower grounding shield piece [18] and the at least two static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] are respectively provided with grounding pins or leading-out pins [18a-18f and end portions of 11, 12 and 13; figure 11], extending outward from a side surface of the plastic body [10]; wherein the grounding pins of the lower grounding shield piece comprises at least four grounding pins [18a-18f] distributed at four corners of the plastic body in a rectangular shape [figure 11].
Claim 9, as best understood, Nakanishi discloses the high-frequency relay with excellent shielding performance according to claim 4, wherein the movable contact part [30] comprises at least one bridge-type movable contact piece [37a and 38a] linked with the magnetic circuit part [20] and an elastic resetting piece [35 and 36] for resetting the bridge-type movable contact piece; the bridge-type movable contact piece is in the gap between the upper grounding shield piece [50] and the lower grounding shield piece [18; figure 10], two ends of the bridge-type movable contact piece respectively correspond to the contacts of two static contact pieces of at least two static contact pieces [37a corresponds to 11 and 12 while 38a corresponds to 12 and 13; figure 10], a lower end of the elastic resetting piece abuts against the lower grounding shield piece, such that an upper end of the elastic resetting piece in a resetting process pushes the bridge-type movable contact piece to the upper grounding shield piece [figure 1].
Claim 14, as best understood, Nakanishi discloses the high-frequency relay with excellent shielding performance according to claim 2, wherein the lower grounding shield piece [18] and the at least two static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] are formed by stamping one strip material, and the lower grounding shield piece [18] and the static contact pieces [11, 12 and 13] are combined into the plastic body [10] co-planarly through the injection molding [figures 8 and 10], so that the lower grounding shield piece and the static contact pieces form a position complementarity in a plane area [figures 8 and 10]. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “formed by stamping one strip material” and “injection molding” are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 10-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As outlined above, under an updated interpretation of Nakanishi [JP H0612957 A], the claimed upper ground shielding structure wherein the plastic body [10] and lower grounding shield pieces [19a/19b/19c/18].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights