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 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, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iketani [US 4,267,540].
Claim 1, Iketani discloses an electromagnetic relay [figure 1], comprising: a fixed contact [54]; a fixed terminal [41] including a contact support portion [46] on which the fixed contact is provided; a coil [22] disposed behind the fixed terminal and having a central axis extending in a front-rear direction [up/down in figure 1 as directions are relative to orientation] of the electromagnetic relay; an iron core [10] including a shaft portion disposed within the coil [figure 1] and extending in the front-rear direction and a head portion [25] connected to a front end of the shaft portion; and a spool [11] around which the coil is wound, wherein the spool includes a hole in which the shaft portion is disposed [figure 1], a flange [23] including a first front surface [23 at 25] at which the hole is open and which is disposed rearward of the head portion to face the head portion [figure 1], and a second front surface [recess in 23 accommodating 54] which is spaced rearward from the first front surface by a predetermined distance and which is disposed rearward of the contact support portion to face the contact support portion, and the predetermined distance is greater than a thickness of the contact support portion in the front-rear direction [figure 1].
Claim 2, Iketani discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, wherein the entire contact support [46] portion is located rearward of the first front surface [23 at 25; figure 1].
Claim 7, Iketani discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, further comprising: a movable contact [56] disposed to face the fixed contact [54]; a movable piece [18] on which the movable contact is provided; and an armature [19] attached to the movable piece, wherein the contact support portion [46] is disposed below the head portion [25], and the armature is attracted to the iron core by an electromagnetic force generated by the coil when the coil is energized so that the armature comes into contact with the head portion below the central axis [col. 3 lines 8-16].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Iketani fails to disclose the spool as claimed.
“As stated, claim 1 expressly recites "a spool around which the coil is wound." As recited a "spool" must physically support the winding of the coil and includes the flange with the first and second front surfaces.”
In response, the spool is comprised of a central portion with flanges located on either end. Therefore, Iketani discloses that a coil 11 is wound around the spool 23. The claim does not require that the coil encapsulate the entirety of the spool including the flanges, merely that the coil be wound unto the spool (the coil is wound into the central portion of the spool of Iketani. Additionally Applicants drawings do not disclose that the coil is wound unto the flanges, the provided drawings show the same coil spoon relationship as disclosed by Iketani with the coil wound onto body portions and the flanges located adjacent thereto.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the coil is wound onto the entirety of the spool) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant contends that the cover 21 is not part of the spool.
In response, the rejection does not rely upon cover 21. As disclosed by Iketani a spool 11 consisting of an upper flange 26, a central portion 27 and a lower flange 31 [col. 1 lines 53-55]. Wherein the coil 11 is wound onto the spool as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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