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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both “a magnetic top plate of the movable terminal” and “the magnetic top plate of the installation frame”. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a magnetic top plate of the movable terminal” (Claim 1), “a static terminal” (Claim 1), “a contactor” (Claim 1), “a pair of static terminals” (Claim 20), “a contactor” (Claim 20) and “a coil” (Claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 20 are indefinite because the recited comparison of comparative tracking index to contactor operating voltage lacks a reasonably certain meaning in the art. Comparative tracking index is a measure of resistance to electrical tracking of an insulating material, whereas maximum operating voltage is an electrical-operating parameter of a device. The claim provides no standard, methodology nor technical explanation establishing how these values are to be compared or why a comparative tracking index value “higher than” or “lower than” an operating voltaag4e define4s a structural distinction between the first and second insulation members. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty, particularly where different insulation standards, material classifications, creepage calculation and voltage ratings may apply. Clarification is required.
Claims 2-19 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the magnetic top plate of the movable terminal " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, recites “the magnetic top plate”. It is unclear if this refers to the previously recited “the magnetic top plate of the movable terminal” or “the magnetic top plate” that is part of the installation frame as defined in parent claim 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the magnetic top plate of the installation frame " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 4 recites that the installation frame comprises a magnetic top plate but does not specifically recite a magnetic top plate of the installation frame.
Claim 10, recites “the magnetic top plate”. It is unclear if this refers to the previously recited “the magnetic top plate of the movable terminal” or “the magnetic top plate” that is part of the installation frame as defined in parent claim 4.
Claims 11-16 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 10.
Claim 13, recites “the magnetic top plate”. It is unclear if this refers to the previously recited “the magnetic top plate of the movable terminal” or “the magnetic top plate” that is part of the installation frame as defined in parent claim 4.
Claims 14-16 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 10.
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, 3, 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. [US 12,688,989] in view of Wang et al. [US 2017/0352966].
Claim 1, as best understood, Huang et al. discloses a contactor movable contact assembly [figure 3], comprising: an installation frame [6] having an insulation bottom seat [66]; a movable terminal [2] movably disposed in the installation frame and electrically contacting a static terminal [1/11] of a contactor [figures 1-3]; a spring [7] disposed in the installation frame and floatably supporting the movable terminal on the insulation bottom seat [figure 1-3]; a drive shaft [5/51] connected to the insulation bottom seat of the installation frame [figure 2], the drive shaft driving the installation frame to move along an axial direction of the drive shaft; and a bottom insulation member [52] disposed on a bottom of the insulation bottom seat and surrounding the drive shaft [figure 3], the insulation bottom seat and the bottom insulation member electrically isolate the drive shaft from the spring,
Zhong et al. fails to teach that a comparative tracking index of the insulation bottom seat is lower than a maximum operating voltage allowed by the contactor, and a comparative tracking index of the bottom insulation member is higher than the maximum operating voltage allowed by the contactor.
Wang et al. teaches an electrical device having reduced arc tracking [abs] comprising a pair of terminals [112, 114] separated by a first insulation layer [102] and a second insulation layer [122], the layers being different materials [paragraphs 0020-0023]; the first insulation member has a lower comparative tracking index [paragraphs 0024-0026] and the second insulation member has a higher comparative tracking index [paragraphs 0023 and 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulation materials of Zhong et al. as taught by Wang et al. in order to provide the desired electrical insulation between the frame and drive shaft. Such selection would have constituted routine engineering judgment involving the optimization of known material property for its intended use, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3, as best understood, Huang et al. as modified disclose the contactor movable contact assembly according to claim 1, wherein the insulation bottom seat [52] is directly formed onto an upper end of the drive shaft [5/21; figure 2] by an injection molding process, the bottom insulation member is directly formed onto the bottom of the insulation bottom seat by a secondary injection molding process. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “injection molding process” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Claim 4, as best understood, Huang et al. as modified disclose the contactor movable contact assembly according to claim 1, wherein the installation frame [6] includes a pair of conductive side plates [not labeled; see figures 2 and 3] fixed to the insulation bottom seat [66] and a magnetic top plate [4] fixed between a top of each of the pair of conductive side plates [figures 2 and 3], a mounting slot [62] is formed at the top of each of the pair of conductive side plates, and a pair of ends of the magnetic top plate are respectively inserted into the mounting slots of the pair of conductive side plates [figure 2].
Claim 20, as best understood, Huang et al. discloses a contactor [figures 1-3] comprising: a static terminal [1/11]; a coil [not shown] generating an electromagnetic field; a contactor movable contact assembly [figure 3], comprising: an installation frame [6] having an insulation bottom seat [66]; a movable terminal [2] movably disposed in the installation frame and electrically contacting a static terminal [1/11] of a contactor [figures 1-3]; a spring [7] disposed in the installation frame and floatably supporting the movable terminal on the insulation bottom seat [figure 1-3]; a drive shaft [5/51] connected to the insulation bottom seat of the installation frame [figure 2], the drive shaft driving the installation frame to move along an axial direction of the drive shaft; and a bottom insulation member [52] disposed on a bottom of the insulation bottom seat and surrounding the drive shaft [figure 3], the insulation bottom seat and the bottom insulation member electrically isolate the drive shaft from the spring,
Zhong et al. fails to teach that a comparative tracking index of the insulation bottom seat is lower than a maximum operating voltage allowed by the contactor, and a comparative tracking index of the bottom insulation member is higher than the maximum operating voltage allowed by the contactor.
Wang et al. teaches an electrical device having reduced arc tracking [abs] comprising a pair of terminals [112, 114] separated by a first insulation layer [102] and a second insulation layer [122], the layers being different materials [paragraphs 0020-0023]; the first insulation member has a lower comparative tracking index [paragraphs 0024-0026] and the second insulation member has a higher comparative tracking index [paragraphs 0023 and 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulation materials of Zhong et al. as taught by Wang et al. in order to provide the desired electrical insulation between the frame and drive shaft. Such selection would have constituted routine engineering judgment involving the optimization of known material property for its intended use, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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