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 § 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over. Sasaki et al. [2018/0047537] in view of Mimura [US 2015/0262743].
Claim 1, Sasaki et al. discloses an electromagnetic relay [100], comprising: a coil [20]; a first contact terminal disposed [44] in front of the coil; a second contact terminal [273] disposed behind the coil; a coil terminal [80] including a body portion [81/83/83] disposed between the first contact terminal and the second contact terminal, and a tie-down portion [85] extending forward from the body portion along the coil [20; figure 3]; and a spool [21] around which the coil [20] is wound with an end of the coil connected to the tie-down portion to electrically connect the coil to the coil terminal [paragraph 0044], the spool [21] being disposed between the first contact terminal [44] and the second contact terminal [273], the spool [21] including a front flange [23] facing the first contact terminal [44] and a rear flange [23] facing the second contact terminal [273; figure 4]; wherein the front flange includes 1) a vertical wall portion located between the first contact terminal and the tie-down portion and 2) a support portion [231] bent relative to the vertical wall portion and extending forward from the vertical wall portion, the spool [23] includes a support portion [231] that is provided on the front flange and supports the first contact terminal [paragraph 0049].
Sasaki et al. fails to teach that the front flange includes 2) a lateral wall portion bent relative to the vertical wall portion and extending forward from the vertical wall portion. and the lateral wall portion extends downward from the support portion.
Mimura teaches an electromagnetic relay [abs], comprising: a coil [20]; a first contact terminal; a second contact terminal [obvious in order to create a relay]; a coil terminal [30] including a body portion [31] disposed between the first contact terminal and the second contact terminal, and a tie-down portion [33] extending forward from the body [31] portion along the coil [20; figure 3]; and a spool [10] around which the coil [20] is wound with an end of the coil connected to the tie-down portion to electrically connect the coil to the coil terminal [paragraph 0051], the spool [10] including a front flange [10a top; figure 1] and a rear flange [10a bottom, figure 1], wherein the front flange includes 1) a vertical wall portion located between the first contact terminal and the tie-down portion and 2) a lateral wall portion bent relative to the vertical wall portion and extending forward from the vertical wall portion see annotated figure 1 above].
PNG
media_image1.png
376
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the spool structure of Mimura by adding the lateral wall that extends the length of the spool in the relay of Sasaki et al. as an alternate coil attachment means that provides additional isolation for components mounted in the flange since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 2, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, wherein Sasaki et al. further disclose that the spool [21] includes a central flange [24] disposed between the front flange [23] and the rear flange [22], the first contact terminal [44] is attached to the front flange [23 via 231], the second contact terminal [273] is attached to the rear flange [22 via 221], and the coil terminal [80] is attached to the central flange [figure 6].
Claim 3, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, wherein Sasaki et al. further discloses that the lateral wall portion extends forward from the vertical wall portion to a position beyond the first contact terminal [figure 2].
Claim 4, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, wherein Sasaki et al. further disclose that the lateral wall portion [once extended as taught Mimura] by covers the first contact terminal from a lateral side [figure 2].
Claim 6, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 5, with the exception that the support portion is longer than the lateral wall portion in a front-rear direction of the electromagnetic relay.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention adjust the relative length of the support portion and longer than the lateral wall portion, since applicant has not disclosed that having different lengths solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the support portion being of equal to the lateral wall portion in a front-rear direction of the electromagnetic relay.
Claims 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over. Sasaki et al. [2018/0047537] in view of Mimura [US 2015/0262743] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minowa [US 7,956,710].
Claim 7, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, further comprising a first contact [42/43] provided on the first contact terminal [44]; a third contact terminal disposed in front of the first contact terminal; a third contact provided on the third contact terminal; a movable piece [46] connected to the second contact terminal [273]; and a movable contact [61/63] provided on the movable piece and adjacent to the first contact [figure 2].
Sasaki et al. as modified fails to teach a third contact terminal disposed in front of the first contact terminal; a third contact provided on the third contact terminal; and a movable contact provided on the movable piece and disposed between the first contact and the third contact.
Minowa teaches a relay [figure 1] comprising a first contact [57b] provided on the first contact terminal [43]; a third contact terminal [42] disposed in front of the first contact terminal [43]; a third contact [57a] provided on the third contact terminal [42]; a movable piece [4] connected to a second contact terminal [41]; and a movable contact [52] provided on the movable piece [4] and disposed between the first contact and the third contact [figure 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the contact structure of Sasaki et al. to include a third contact terminal as taught by Minowa in order to create a relay that can switch a signal/voltage to two different outputs.
Claim 8, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, further disclosing comprising a base [10] disposed below the spool [21] but fails to teach that the base including a base wall portion disposed between the first contact terminal and the tie-down portion.
Minowa teaches a relay [figure 1] comprising a base [11] disposed below a spool [22] wherein the base including a base wall portion [17] disposed between a first contact terminal and a first flange of the spool adjacent to the first contact terminal [figure 5].
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 base wall portion of Minowa which would be located between the first contact terminal and the tie-down portion in the relay of Sasaki et al. in order to provide additional isolation and alignment means between the coil and contacts.
Claim 10, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, further comprising a case [50] including a side surface covering the first contact terminal from a lateral side, wherein the lateral wall portion [extended 231 as modified] is disposed between the first contact terminal and the side surface of the case, and a front end of the lateral wall portion is located past the first contact terminal.
Sasaki et al. as modified fails to teach that a third contact terminal disposed in front of the first contact terminal; and a front end of the lateral wall portion is located between the first contact terminal and the third contact terminal.
Minowa teaches a relay [figure 1] comprising a first contact [57b] provided on the first contact terminal [43]; a third contact terminal [42] disposed in front of the first contact terminal [43]; case [6] including a side surface covering the first contact terminal and the third contact terminal from a lateral side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the contact structure of Sasaki et al. to include a third contact terminal as taught by Minowa in order to create a relay that can switch a signal/voltage to two different outputs.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over. Sasaki et al. [2018/0047537] in view of Mimura [US 2015/0262743] as applied to claim 1 above, Miyake [US 2021/0012993].
Claim 9, Sasaki et al. as modified discloses the electromagnetic relay according to claim 1, further comprising a base [10] disposed below the spool [21]; and a case [50] attached to the base [10] and covering the spool [21], but fail to teach that the case including a case wall portion disposed between the first contact terminal and the tie-down portion.
Miyake teaches a relay [1] comprising a base [6] disposed below the spool [22]; and a case [7] attached to the base and covering the spool [figure 1], the case including a case wall portion [61] disposed between the first contact terminal [for contact 3; figure 3] and the spool.
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 case wall portion of Minowa which would be located between the first contact terminal and the tie-down portion in the relay of Sasaki et al. in order to provide additional isolation and alignment means between the coil and contacts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the combination of Sasaki et al. [2018/0047537] in view of Mimura [US 2015/0262743] fails to teach the independent claim as amended. Specifically, the addition of original claim 5 to independent claim 1. At issue it that the combination of the reference are not obvious and therefore would not yield the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Including the lateral wall of the flange of Mimura to the flange of Sasaki et al. would result in the lateral wall extending the support portion the length of the flange to create an area isolated component area by the flange, support portion, vertical wall portion and lateral wall portion where comp
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 on (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