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 with traverse of Species 1, Figures 1A-1J, claims 121-40 in the reply filed on 6/24/26 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Page 3, Applicant argued that:
“First, the restriction requirement lists Figures (as Species) and not different groups of claims as required by the Rules…………Finally, Applicant notes that the International Research Authority (ISA), which has already evaluated unity of invention, has not objected to the unity of the claimed subject matter indicating that there is unity of invention. Hence, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the restriction requirement.”
Examiner agreed to withdraw the restriction.
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 21, 22, 24, 27 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Hoffman (DE 10 2020114 385 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hoffman discloses a switch comprising:
the switching chamber (131) comprising: at least a switching chamber base (130) comprising: on an inner side facing an interior of the switching chamber (131),
a bottom surface (see the drawing below) with a web structure (see the drawing below), which projects out of the bottom surface into the interior (see the drawing below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Spring element & Outer edge part)][AltContent: textbox (Interior )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom regions & web structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
237
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Hoffman discloses:
the bottom surface (see the drawing above) comprises a plurality of bottom regions (see the drawing above) separated from each other by the web structure (see the drawing above).
Regarding claim 24, Hoffman discloses:
the web structure (see the drawing above) comprises at least one web separating at least two bottom regions (see the drawing above) from each other.
Regarding claim 27, Hoffman discloses:
the switching chamber base (130) comprises an opening for passage of a shaft (7) of the switching device, and wherein the web structure (see the drawing above) comprises a collar structure (see the drawing below) raised above the bottom surface and surrounding the opening (see the drawing below).
[AltContent: textbox (Opening )][AltContent: textbox (Collar structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
275
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
275
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Hoffman discloses:
at least one fixed contact (2, 3) and a movable contact (4) in the switching chamber,
wherein the switching chamber contains a gas comprising H2 (see the abstract).
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.
Claims 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (DE 10 2020114 385 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Hoffman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the bottom surface (see the drawing above) has a total area and each of the plurality of bottom regions has an area that is less than or equal to 20% of the total area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bottom surface (see the drawing above) has a total area and each of the plurality of bottom regions has an area that is less than or equal to 20% of the total area, for the purpose of preventing physical load or mechanical stress from concentrating in one massive, vulnerable zone. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 25, Hoffman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the at least one web has a height of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one web has a height of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm for the purpose of making the balances mechanical functionality with manufacturing limitations. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 26, Hoffman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the web structure forms a honeycomb structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the web structure forms a honeycomb structure for the purpose of having light weight, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 28, Hoffman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the collar structure has a height that is greater than a height of at least one web of the web structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the collar structure has a height that is greater than a height of at least one web of the web structure for the purpose of suitability of the design choice. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image4.png
266
417
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
235
431
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Hoffman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the bottom surface is surrounded by a circumferential raised edge structure, and wherein the edge structure and the collar structure have an equal height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bottom surface is surrounded by a circumferential raised edge structure, and wherein the edge structure and the collar structure have an equal height for the purpose of suitability of the design choice. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 31, Hoffman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the bottom surface is surrounded by a circumferential raised edge structure, and wherein the edge structure has a height being greater than the height of at least one web of the web structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bottom surface is surrounded by a circumferential raised edge structure, and wherein the edge structure has a height being greater than the height of at least one web of the web structure. for the purpose of suitability of the design choice. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 32, Hoffman discloses:
the switching chamber base (130) comprises spring elements (see the drawing above), which are part of an outer edge part (see the drawing above)
However, Hoffman fails to explicitly disclose the spring elements are in form of leaf springs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spring elements are in form of leaf springs for the purpose of flexibility to bend and flexes outward/inward to cushion jolts, and vibrations.
Regarding claim 38, Hoffman teaches the claimed subject as disclosed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose the switching chamber base is formed integrally from a plastic material, wherein the plastic material comprises one or more materials selected from polyoxymethylene, polybutylene terephthalate and polyamide, or a glass fiber content of less than or equal to 50%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the switching chamber base is formed integrally from a plastic material, wherein the plastic material comprises one or more materials selected from polyoxymethylene, polybutylene terephthalate and polyamide, or a glass fiber content of less than or equal to 50% for the purpose of providing the superior durability, corrosion resistance, and ease of installation.
PNG
media_image6.png
565
422
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30, 33, 34-37 and 40 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest the switching device comprising:
Claim 30: the edge structure comprises an inner edge part having a first height and an outer edge part having a second height, where the first height is greater than the second height, wherein the outer edge part has a support surface for a switching chamber cover of the switching chamber, and wherein the edge structure comprises at least one spring element which is part of the support surface.
Claim 33: the switching chamber base has a sleeve-shaped guide region, arranged on an outer side opposite the inner side, configured for guiding a shaft of the switching device.
Claim 35: a ventilation channel extending from an outside of the switching chamber into the interior and opening into the interior with a ventilation opening in a collar structure of the web structure.
Claim 40: a magnetic drive with a shaft, which projects into the switching chamber through an opening in the switching chamber base,
wherein the magnetic drive has a fixed yoke above which the switching chamber is arranged, and wherein the switching chamber base has, on an outer side facing away from the interior of the switching chamber, a sleeve-shaped guide region which projects into an opening of the yoke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Lisa Homza whose telephone number is (571) 272-3592.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lisa Nhung Homza/
Patent Examiner - Art Unit 2837
August 30, 2026
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights