DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 6, Claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 08/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12243700. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed structural limitations in the present application are included in the patented claim.
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 4-16 are 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.
In re claims 4-6 and 10-16, claim dependency of claim 4 is missing, thus making claims 4-6 and 10-16 indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the upper yoke" in line 1. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu (CN 211208340).
In re claim 1, Liu, in figures 1-17, discloses a DC relay for anti-short circuit current and arc extinction, comprising: two static contact leading-out ends; a pushing rod assembly; a movable contact piece of a straight sheet type, installed in the pushing rod assembly such that movable contacts at two ends of the movable contact piece cooperate with the static contacts at bottom ends of the two static contact leading-out ends under an action of the pushing rod assembly (as best seen in figure 3); and three permanent magnets, a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet of the three permanent magnets are respectively arranged at two sides of the movable contact piece in a width direction; a space is respectively provided between the first and second permanent magnets and the movable contact piece; the first and second permanent magnets are adjacent to one of two movable contacts of the movable contact piece; magnetic polarities of the first and second permanent magnets facing one face of adjacent movable contact are the same; a third permanent magnet of the three permanent magnets is arranged on one side of the movable contact piece in a length direction; a space is provided between the third permanent magnet and the movable contact piece; the third permanent magnet is adjacent to another one of the two movable contacts of the movable contact piece; a polarity face of the third permanent magnet is substantially perpendicular to the polarity faces of the first and the second permanent magnets, so that an Lorentz force generated by the movable contact piece in an arc extinction magnetic field formed by the three permanent magnets is substantially zero (several configurations of three permanent magnet arrangements are shown in figures 4-17 that all meet the claim limitations above).
In re claim 2, Liu, in figures 1-17, discloses that a magnetic polarity of a face of the third permanent magnet facing the movable contact is same as the magnetic polarities of the faces of the first and the second permanent magnets facing the movable contact, SO that blowing directions of the arc extinction magnetic field formed by the three permanent magnets at the two movable contacts respectively face outsides (as seen in figures 1-17).
In re claim 3, Liu, in figures 1-17, discloses that the DC relay further comprises two U-shaped yoke clamps (yoke 610 is split into two U shaped yoke clamps), and each of the U-shaped yoke clamps comprises two side walls opposite to each other and a bottom wall for connecting one end of each of the two side walls, wherein the two side walls of one of the yoke clamps are respectively connected to two surfaces facing away from each other of the first and second permanent magnets of the movable contact, and the bottom wall is positioned at one side of the movable contact piece in the length direction, the bottom wall of another one of the yoke clamps is connected to a surface of the third permanent magnet facing away from the movable contact, and the two side walls are respectively positioned outside two sides of the movable contact piece in the width direction (as seen in figures 4-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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 Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights