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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “9” has been used to designate both movable contacts and fixed contacts in figures 3 and 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 § 102
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. [US 2017/0032913].
Claim 1, Lee et al. discloses an electromagnetic contactor [figure 2] comprising: a container [131/160] provided with a container-side joining portion [portion of 131 which contacts 151; figure 2]; a fixed contact piece [110] having a fixed contact [111] and arranged in the container; a movable contact piece [120] having a movable contact [121] which comes into contact with, and is separated from, the fixed contact and arranged in the container; an electromagnet unit [140] operatively joined to the movable contact via a contact support [not labeled; the shaft spring connecting the movable contact to the electromagnet as shown in figure 2] and arranged in the container, wherein the electromagnet unit is provided with a unit-side joining portion [portion of 143 which contacts 151; figure 2] joined to the container-side joining portion in a direction of movement of the movable contact [up/down as shown in figure 2]; and a spacer [151] arranged between the container-side joining portion and the unit-side joining portion [figure 2] to adjust an inter-contact gap between the fixed contact and the movable contact.[inherent, the thickness of the spacer 151 sets the distance between the fixed and movable contacts].
Claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the electromagnetic contactor according to claim 1, wherein the container includes a cylindrical capsule case [131] which has one end opened and the other end closed [figure 2], and a capsule cover [160] configured to cover the one end of the capsule case [figure 2], the fixed contact piece [110] is integrally formed with the other end of the capsule case such that the fixed contact projects to an inside of the capsule case [figure 2], the container-side joining portion is a case-side mounting surface formed on a peripheral edge of an open end of the capsule case [figure 2], and the spacer [151] is arranged interposed between the case-side mounting surface and the unit-side joining portion [figure 2; paragraph 0045].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. [US 2017/0032913] in view of Tachikawa et al. [US 9,543,102].
Claim 3, Lee et al. discloses the electromagnetic contactor according to claim 1, wherein a distance between a first surface [surface opposite 151] of the unit-side joining portion [portion of 143 which contacts 151; figure 2] and the movable contact [121] in the direction of movement of the movable contact piece in a state that the electromagnet unit is not excited is first distance L1, a distance between a second surface [surface facing 151] of the container-side joining portion [portion of 131 which contacts 151; figure 2] and the fixed contact [11] in the direction of movement of the movable contact piece is second distance L2.
Lee et al. fails to teach that a target value of an inter-contact gap Gt wherein thickness T of the spacer is determined by an equation (a) below: T = Gt - (L2 - L1) ... (a).
Tachikawa et al. teaches an electromagnetic switch comprising a regulated contact gap in which reference distances are measured and calculated associated with the fixed contacts [11] and the movable contact [12] and a spacer [61] to obtain a desired contact pressure [paragraph 0033, claims 13 and 14, abs].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the methodology of Tachikawa et al. to the spacer of Lee et al. since Tachikawas already teaches deriving a compensating dimension from a target gap and two measured reference distance in an analogous device, and T=Gt-(L2-L1) is simply the routine mathematical expression of that same relationship once the elements are defined.
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