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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/08/2025, 05/06/2025, 08/07/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “circular tubular” is grammatically incorrect. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “circular tube”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is similarly objected to for depending from objected parent claim 4.
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 5, 6, 16 and 17 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.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: it is unclear if the coil heat dissipation structure applied to one of the coil heat dissipation structures as outlined in parent claim 1 or each coil heat dissipation structure as outlined in parent claim 1.
Claims 6, 16 and 17 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coil" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of claim 2 “the two contact reed leading- out pins respectively pass out of the two sintered sections along the central axis of the tube body” is recited in parent claim 1 lines 6-7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 7, 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith [US 4,145,805] in view of Cao [CN 115440514 A] and further in view of Strauss [EP 0207365 A2].
Claim 1, Smith discloses a reed relay, comprising: a reed switch, comprising a glass tube [14] having a circular tube body; and a bobbin [16], two contact reeds [10, 11] capable of contacting or separating from each other are provided inside the tube body, and two contact reed leading-out pins [12, 13] respectively pass out of each of two ends of the tube body along a central axis of the tube body [figure 1]; the bobbin is injection-molded [abs] and entirely wraps the glass tube [figures 1 and 2], the bobbin comprises a circular tubular winding portion [20] and two head portions [21/22] connected to two ends of the winding portion, and an end of each of the two contact reed leading-out pins passes out from a central position of an end surface of each of the two head portions [figures 1 and 2]; each tube end portion is partially or entirely located in one head portion [figures 1 and 2], a part of each contact reed leading-out pin is covered and fixed by the one head portion section [figures 1 and 2]. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “the bobbin is injection-molded” 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.
Cao teaches a reed switch comprising two contact reed leading-out pins respectively pass out of the two sintered sections along a central axis of the tube body [abs, clm1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sinter the glass tube of the reed switch of Smtih as taught by Cao in order to increase the glass strength at the point where the reed contacts the tube end.
Smtih in view of Cao fails to teach that each head portion is provided with a coil heat dissipation structure close to the sintered section.
Strauss teaches a reed relay [abs], comprising: a reed switch, comprising a glass tube having a circular tube body [highlighted portion of page 4]; and a bobbin [10], two contact reeds capable of contacting or separating from each other are provided inside the tube body [highlighted portion of page 4], the bobbin comprises a circular tubular winding portion [10a] and two head portions [10b, 10b’] connected to two ends of the winding portion [figure 1], each of two ends of the tube body section is partially or entirely located in one head portion [highlighted portion of page 4], and that each head portion is provided with a coil heat dissipation structure [12, acts like a vent allowing air to access a portion of the coil end].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include the heat dissipation structure of Strauss in the reed relay of Smith in view of Cao in order dissipate coil heat.
Claim 2, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, wherein Smith further discloses that the two contact reed leading-out pins [12, 13] respectively pass out of each of two ends of the tube body along a central axis of the tube body [figure 1];
Claim 3, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, wherein Smith further discloses that a central axis of the head portions [21, 22] of the bobbin [20] coincide with a central axis of the winding portion 30; figure 1].
Claim 4, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, wherein Smith further discloses that the winding portion [30] is in a shape of a circular tube [figures 1 and 6], a central axis of the circular tubular winding portion coincides with the central axis of the tube body [figures 1 and 6].
Claim 7, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, wherein Smith further discloses that the coil leading-out pins [24, 25] pass through a head portion [22], and an end of each of two coil leading-out pins is electrically connected to a corresponding one of two ends of an enameled wire of the coil [figure 6; col. 2 lines 35-37].
Smith fails to each that one coil leading-out pin passes through an upper part of each head portion.
Strauss teaches that the ends [10a, 10b] of the coil [13] can be placed on separate bobbin head portions [10b, 10b’] and an end of each of two coil leading-out pins is electrically connected to a corresponding one of two ends of an enameled wire of the coil [highlighted portion of page 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention move the location of the coil leading-out pins from being on one flange as disclosed by Smith to a coil leading-out pin being located on each flange as taught by Strauss to adjust the routing of the terminal, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 11, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, wherein Smith further discloses that each contact reed leading-out pin [12, [13] passing out of the head portion [21, 22] is cylindrical, a middle part of each contact reed leading- out pin passing out of the head portion is provided with a flat portion [10, 11], and the flat portion is parallel to or perpendicular to a contact surface of a contact of the contact reed [figure 1].
Claim 12, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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 13, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 2, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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 14, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 3, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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 15, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 4, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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 16, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 5, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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 18, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 7, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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.
Claims 5, 6, 8-10, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith [US 4,145,805] in view of Cao [CN 115440514 A] and further in view of Strauss [EP 0207365 A2], as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miura [JP H05120970 A].
Claim 5, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, wherein Strauss teaches that the coil heat dissipation structure comprises a plurality of holes [12] on opposite end surfaces of the two head portions [17a, 17b; see figures 1a and 1b], the plurality of heat dissipation holes are distributed around a cylindrical surface, and a central axis of the cylindrical surface coincides with the central axis of the tube body [figures 1a and 1b],
Smith as modified fails to teach that the coil heat dissipation structure comprises a groove.
Miura teaches a coil assembly for a reed relay [paragraph 0001] comprising a bobbin [1a] with two head portions [3a, 3b] have an opening that is either a hole [17; figure 3b; highlighted portion of page 3] or a groove [17/18; figure 4; highlighted portion of page 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a groove in the reed relay of Smith as modified in place of a hole as taught by Miura in order to provide a larger pass through in the head portion since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 6, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 5, wherein Miura further discloses that the head portion [3b] further has a plurality of side surfaces connected to the end surface, one end of each heat dissipation groove extends to the side surfaces of the head portion, and another end of each heat dissipation groove is located on the cylindrical surface [figure 4, grooves 17 and 18 extends along both the side surfaces of the head portion and on the cylindrical surface].
Claim 8, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 7, with the exception of each of the two head portions is provided with a positioning groove, two positioning grooves of the two head portions are located at a same side of the winding portion, another end of each coil leading-out pin is partially located in the positioning groove after being bent.
Miura teaches a coil assembly for a reed relay [paragraph 0001] comprising a bobbin [1a] with two head portions [3a, 3b] and two coil leading-out pins [6, 7], wherein each of the two head portions [3a, 3b] is provided with a positioning groove [4, 5, 18, 19], two positioning grooves of the two head portions are located at a same side of the winding portion [figure 4], another end of each coil leading-out pin is partially located in the positioning groove after being bent [figure 4].
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 positioning groove of Miura in the reed relay of Smith et al. as modified in order to help align the coil lead-out pins.
Claim 9, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 7, wherein each head portion is provided with a wire passing hole [12] close to an end of the coil leading-out pin.
Smith as modified fails to teach that the coil heat dissipation structure comprises a groove; and at least one of the head portions is provided with a winding clamping groove.
Miura teaches a coil assembly for a reed relay [paragraph 0001] comprising a bobbin [1a] with two head portions [3a, 3b] have an opening that is either a hole [17; figure 3b; highlighted portion of page 3] or a groove [17/18; figure 4; highlighted portion of page 3]; and at least one of the head portions [3a] is provided with a winding clamping groove [4].
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 clamping groove and replace the hole of Smith as modified with a groove as taught by Miura in order to provide lead placement since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 10, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 1, with the exception of a shape of a cross-sectional profile of each head portion along a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the tube body comprises a first rectangle and a second rectangle disposed in a middle of an upper surface of the first rectangle, wherein a size of the second rectangle is smaller than a size of the first rectangle in the direction perpendicular to the central axis of the tube body.
Miura teaches a coil assembly for a reed relay [paragraph 0001] a bobbin [1a] with two head portions [3a, 3b]; wherein a shape of a cross-sectional profile of each head portion along a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the tube body comprises a first rectangular [figure 2a and 2b].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the cylindrical head portions as Smith as modified as rectangular as claimed in order to facilitate mounting the bobbin on a planar surface. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Claim 17, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 6, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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 19, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 8, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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 20, Smith as modified discloses the reed relay according to claim 9, wherein Smith further discloses that an injection molding process [abs] portion is provided on one of the two head portions and is located at a central position of the end surface of the head portion away from the winding portion. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “an 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.
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