DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 10 December 2025. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-18, 23, 24, and 26-28 are pending.
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
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 11-13, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 1 February 2024 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya (US 2019/0006094) in view of Zhu (CN 202551397), and St. Louis (US 5,935,471).
Regarding claim 14, Furiya discloses a flat coil comprising a flat coil carrier and a coil wire (Fig. 3, coil 21 and carrier 31), the coil carrier including: a carrier body including a groove spiral, the groove spiral disposed on an axial front side of the carrier body and having an axially open groove opening, the groove spiral extending spirally on the carrier body such that a spiral separating wall protruding axially from the carrier body extends parallel to the groove spiral and separates radially adjacent portions of the groove spiral, and wherein the coil wire is received in the groove spiral (Fig. 3). Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that the carrier body further includes a plurality of protrusions projecting radially from the spiral separating wall into the groove spiral such that a plurality of undercuts configured to receive the coil wire are defined, wherein, relative to a radial center of the groove spiral, the plurality of protrusions project radially outward from the spiral separating wall, wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged along the spiral separating wall longitudinally spaced apart from one another such that the spiral separating wall includes a plurality of longitudinal undercut sections and a plurality of longitudinal separating sections disposed in an alternating manner, wherein the carrier body further includes a plurality of undercut segments and a plurality separating segments extending radially from the radial center of the groove spiral and disposed about the radial center in an alternating manner, wherein the plurality of undercut segments are each defined by a subset of the plurality of undercut sections that are disposed in radial alignment with one another, wherein the plurality of separating segments are each defined by a subset of the plurality of separating sections that are disposed in radial alignment with one another; and wherein the plurality of undercut segments each extend over an angular area of 60 degrees or less. Zhu discloses these limitations (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya and Zhu, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of securely retaining the coil wire in the holder. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil carrier including grooves for receiving a wire coil, the grooves separated by walls. Zhu teaches that the walls should include radially-extending protrusions for retaining the coil in the groove. The teachings of Zhu are directly applicable to Furiya in the same way, so that Furiya’s coil carrier would similarly include protrusions extending from the walls so that the coil would be securely retained in the grooves.
Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that the carrier body further includes a plurality of axial apertures disposed in a bottom of the groove spiral, and wherein, in at least one of the plurality of longitudinal undercut sections, a radial surface of the spiral separating wall, which faces toward or away from the radial center of the groove spiral, defines at least a portion of a respective undercut of the plurality of undercuts and at least a portion of a respective axial aperture of the plurality of axial apertures. St. Louis discloses these limitations (Figs. 1 and 5; aperture/opening of slot 35). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya, Zhu, and St. Louis, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving cooling of wires. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil carrier including grooves for retaining a wire coil, the grooves separated by spiral separating walls, and Zhu discloses the spiral separating walls having protrusions with undercuts. St. Louis teaches that the retaining sections have apertures to improve cooling. The teachings of St. Louis are directly applicable to Furiya and Zhu in the same way, so that Furiya and Zhu would similarly include an aperture in the wire groove to improve cooling.
Regarding claim 3, Furiya discloses that the groove spiral has a rectangular basic layout having a plurality of consecutive longitudinal sides which extend at least essentially tangentially and the plurality of consecutive longitudinal sides transition into one another via a plurality of curve corner sections of the groove spiral (Fig. 4; ¶38).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya in view of Zhu, St. Louis, Hsu (US 2015/0053773), and Ford (US 2,488,391).
Regarding claim 8, Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that at least one of the plurality of consecutive longitudinal sides has a curved curvature section with a radius of curvature which is ten times to one hundred fifty times a radius of curvature of an adjacent curved corner section of the plurality of curved corner sections. However, this limitation is implied by, or merely an obvious variant of, Furiya. The Specification states at ¶24 that the radius of curvature of the longitudinal side being 10-150 times the radius of curvature a corner section is such that the longitudinal sides run ‘essentially tangentially’. Furiya’s Fig. 4 illustrates longitudinal sides that run essentially tangentially, with radius of curvature ten or a hundred times the radius of curvature of the corner, based on where we consider to be the longitudinal side and the adjacent corner to begin and end and where the radius of curvatures are measured. Furthermore, the claimed radius of curvature of 10-150x the radius of curvature of the corner is essentially straight with a slight curve, and persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Furiya’s longitudinal sides could be straight or slightly curved, as taught by Hsu (¶27), resulting in alternative shapes with longitudinal sides having radius of curvature 10-150x the radius of curvature of the corners, as illustrated in Ford (Fig. 6 vs Fig. 3). Finally, the exact shape or radius of curvature of the coil is an obvious matter of design choice; persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the exact shape and dimensions of the coil could be altered according to designer preferences while maintaining its function, including recognized variations such as slightly curving straight edges by varying degrees. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya, Zhu, St. Louis, Hsu, and Ford, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of producing coils of various shapes according to designer preferences. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Furiya discloses a coil holder having grooves corresponding to the coil windings, the coil having longitudinal sides. Hsu teaches that sides can be essentially straight or slightly curved, and Ford teaches resulting alternative coil shapes with longitudinal side radius of curvature of various multiples of that of the corners. The teachings of Hsu and Ford are directly applicable to Furiya in the same way, so that Furiya’s coil grooves would similarly have slightly curved longitudinal sides with radius of curvature of large multiples of the radius of curvature of the corners, in order to produce coils and corresponding holders having various shapes according to designer preferences.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya in view of Zhu, St. Louis, and Connell (US 3,518,596).
Regarding claim 15, Furiya discloses that the flat coil carrier includes a clamp engaged with and fixing at least one longitudinal end of the coil wire to the flat coil carrier (Fig. 6, longitudinal end such as 23 is clamped between plates). If Furiya is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Connell also discloses the same (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya, Zhu, St. Louis, and Connell, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of securing the coil wire. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil carrier. Connell teaches that the coil carrier should clamp the longitudinal ends of the coil wire. The teachings of Connell are directly applicable to Furiya in the same way, so that Furiya’s carrier would similarly clamp the longitudinal ends of the coil wire to secure the coil wire.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya in view of Li (CN 202310166) and Nishimura (JP 2017017874)
Regarding claim 23, Furiya discloses a flat coil, comprising a coil wire and a flat coil carrier including a carrier body (Fig. 3), wherein: the carrier body includes: a groove spiral extending spirally around an axis extending in an axial direction, the groove spiral disposed on an axial front side of the carrier body and having an axially open groove opening; a spiral separating wall protruding axially from the carrier body, extending parallel to the groove spiral, and separating radially adjacent portions of the groove spiral (Figs. 3 and 5A).
Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that at least one protrusion projecting radially from the spiral separating wall into the groove spiral such that an undercut configured to receive the coil wire is defined; the coil wire is received in the groove spiral; and the coil wire has a diameter that is smaller than a radial dimension of a radially reduced portion of the groove opening defined between the at least one protrusion and the spiral separating wall. Li discloses these limitations (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya and Li, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of more easily placing the coil in the groove. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil carrier having a groove for holding the coil. Li teaches that the groove walls have protrusions, and the coil wire is thinner than the opening between the protrusions and walls. The teachings of Li are directly applicable to Furiya in the same way so that Furiya’s coil carrier would also include groove openings between the protrusions and groove walls larger than the coil wire diameter, so that the coil wire is more easily inserted in the groove.
Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that at least one protrusion projecting radially from the spiral separating wall into the groove spiral such that an undercut configured to receive the coil wire is defined; the coil wire is received in the groove spiral; and the coil wire has a diameter that is larger than a radial dimension of the at least one protrusion; a curved surface is arranged at a transition between the at least one protrusion and the spiral separating wall, the curved surface defining a corner region of the undercut and having a curvature corresponding to an outer contour of the coil wire. Nishimura discloses the same (Figs. 4 and 11). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya, Li, and Nishimura because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of the groove more fixedly holding the wire. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil carrier having a groove for holding the coil. Nishimura teaches that the groove walls have protrusions shaped to correspond to the coil wire. The teachings of Nishimura are directly applicable to Furiya in the same way so that Furiya’s coil carrier would also include protrusions shaped to correspond to the coil wire, so that Furiya’s grooves would more fixedly hold the coil wire.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya in view of Li, Nishimura, and Zhu.
Regarding claim 16, Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that the at least one protrusion includes a plurality of protrusions arranged along the spiral separating wall longitudinally spaced apart from one another such that the spiral separating wall includes a plurality of longitudinal undercut sections and a plurality of longitudinal separating sections disposed in an alternating manner. Nishimura discloses these limitations (Fig. 4); if Nishimura is found to be unclear, Zhu also discloses these limitations (Figs. 1 and 3). Furthermore, the positioning of the undercuts is an obvious matter of design choice; persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that undercuts could be placed in various locations and orientations to secure the coil. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya, Li, Nishimura, and Zhu, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of securing a coil in a coil holder. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil holder. Zhu teaches longitudinal undercuts disposed at intervals that secure the coil in the holder at various points. The teachings of Zhu are directly applicable to Furiya in the same way, so that Furiya’s coil holder would similarly include longitudinal undercuts to secure the coil in the holder.
Regarding claim 17, Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that the carrier body includes a plurality of undercut segments and a plurality separating segments extending radially from a radial center of the groove spiral and disposed about the radial center in an alternating manner; the plurality of undercut segments are each defined by a subset of the plurality of undercut sections that are disposed in radial alignment with one another; and the plurality of separating segments are each defined by a subset of the plurality of separating sections that are disposed in radial alignment with one another. Nishimura (Fig. 4) and Zhu (Fig. 1) disclose these limitations. Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 23 and 16.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya in view of Li, Nishimura, Zhu and Shi.
Regarding claim 18, Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that the plurality of protrusions extend along the groove spiral a respective longitudinal distance and are disposed a respective radial distance from a radial center of the groove spiral, and the respective radial distance and the respective longitudinal distance are positively correlated. Shi discloses these limitations (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the position and length of the undercuts is an obvious matter of design choice; persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that undercuts of various lengths could be placed in various locations and orientations to secure the coil.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya, Li, Nishimura, Zhu, and Shi, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of securely retaining the coil wire in the holder. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil carrier including grooves for receiving a wire coil, the grooves separated by walls. Shi teaches that the walls should include radially-extending protrusions for retaining the coil in the groove. The teachings of Shi are directly applicable to Furiya in the same way, so that Furiya’s coil carrier would similarly include protrusions extending from the walls so that the coil would be securely retained in the grooves.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya in view of Li, Nishimura, Zhu, and St. Louis.
Regarding claim 28, Furiya does not appear to explicitly disclose that the carrier body further includes a plurality of axial apertures disposed in a bottom of the groove spiral, and in at least one of the plurality of longitudinal undercut sections, a radial surface of the spiral separating wall, which faces toward or away from the radial center of the groove spiral, defines at least a portion of the undercut and at least a portion of a respective axial aperture of the plurality of axial apertures. St. Louis discloses these limitations (Figs. 1 and 5; aperture/opening of slot 35). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Furiya, Li, Nishimura, Zhu, and St. Louis, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving cooling of wires. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Furiya discloses a coil carrier including grooves for retaining a wire coil, the grooves separated by spiral separating walls, and Zhu discloses the spiral separating walls having protrusions with undercuts. St. Louis teaches that the retaining sections have apertures to improve cooling. The teachings of St. Louis are directly applicable to Furiya and Zhu in the same way, so that Furiya and Zhu would similarly include an aperture in the wire groove to improve cooling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that St. Louis fails to teach the limitations of “a radial surface of the spiral separating wall, which faces toward or away from a radial center of the groove spiral, defines at least a portion of the undercut and at least a portion of a respective axial aperture of the plurality of axial apertures.” Remarks 14. The examiner disagrees. As shown in Applicant’s own annotated drawing, the surface 48 also defines “at least a portion” of the aperture of the slot 35; it is not clear how the drawing could be interpreted otherwise, since the aperture’s edge/wall is the end of the surface 48.
Applicant further asserts that the prior art fails to teach limitations added to claim 23. Remarks 16. These limitations are addressed above in the rejections using newly-cited art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-13, 24, and 26 are allowed.
Claim 27 is 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
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 ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
30 January 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851