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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art of Arai does not read on the applicant claimed invention in regards to the windings having an A-frame shape since the first and second conductors 25a/25b disclosed in Figures 1-2 of Arai are substantially U-shaped structures. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Para 0012 and 0031 of the applicant specifications disclose how the A-frame shape winding resembles the lower legs and the cross piece of the upper-case letter A. The first conductor 25A and a second conductor 25B shown in Arai Figures 1- 2 have similar structural features wherein first conductor 25A and a second conductor 25B have lower legs and a cross piece of the upper-case letter A (see drawing below) Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action. Note: The applicant needs to define in more detail the structural features of the A frame shape winding that’s shown in figure 2b and add those features into independent claims 1 and 11.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
1 Claims 1, 7-8, 11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Arai et al.(US 20220122765).
Regarding claim 1, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0045-0080) discloses a winding (25a), comprising: first and second terminations (25a4/25a5) that are configured to be electrically connected to the printed wire board (2) at different locations (see figure 1 and para 0049); and a core (10), comprising: a first section (11) comprising magnetic material (see para 0056) with a channel along an inner surface (see figures 7-8 and para 0059), configured to receive the winding (see figures 7-8), and ending at or above first and second bottom corners of the inner surface(see figures 1-4); a second section (12) that is a mirror image of the first section including an inner surface that faces the inner surface of the first section (see figures 7-8 and para 0059), and a distributed gap (13), that uniformly separates the first section from the second section except where the winding passes along the mirror-image channels (see figures 1-3 and para 0058-0059), wherein: the winding lies along the distributed gap in the mirror-image channels of the first and second sections(see figures 1-8), and the winding spatially divides the core into an upper portion (12) and a lower portion (11) that are equal in volume (see figures 7-8 showing identical cores) and the winding has an A-frame shape. (see drawing below)
PNG
media_image1.png
548
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0045-0080) discloses wherein the distributed gap is oriented perpendicularly to the printed wire board.
Regarding claim 8, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0071-0023) discloses wherein the core further comprises at least one region of a nonmagnetic spacer (30).
Regarding claim 11, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0045-0080) discloses a printed wire board (2); and an inductor (25a) disposed above and mounted on the printed wire board (see figure 1), the inductor comprising: a winding (25a), comprising: first and second terminations (25a4/25a5), that are configured to be electrically connected to the printed wire board at different locations (see figure 1 and para 0049);; and a core (10), comprising: a first section (11) comprising magnetic material with a channel along an inner surface (see figures 7-8 and para 0059), configured to receive the winding (see figures 7-8 and para 0059), and ending at or above first and second bottom corners of the inner surface (see figures 1-2); a second section (12) that is a mirror image of the first section including an inner surface that faces the inner surface of the first section (see figures 7-8 and para 0059), and a distributed gap(13)that uniformly separates the first section from the second section except where the winding passes through the mirror-image channels (see figures 1-3 and para 0058-0059), wherein: the winding lies along the distributed gap in the mirror-image channels of the first and second sections(see figures 1-8 and para 0058-0059), and the winding spatially divides the core into an upper portion (12) and a lower portion (11) that are equal in volume (see figures 7-8 showing identical cores) and the winding has an A-frame shape. (see drawing below)
PNG
media_image1.png
548
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0045-0080) discloses wherein the distributed gap is oriented perpendicularly to the printed wire board.
Regarding claim 21, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0071-0023) discloses wherein the core further comprises at least one region of a nonmagnetic spacer (30).
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.
3 Claims 2, 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al.(US 20220122765) in view of Sutardja (US 20050012586)
Regarding claim 2, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0045-0080) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly discloses wherein the mirror-image channels that hold the winding end at the first and second bottom corners of the inner surfaces where the mirror- image channels bend by a first angle between 0 and 90 degrees and bend a second time by a second angle that is the complement of the first angle resulting in a horizontal portion of the mirror-image channels.
Sutardja (figure 38 and para 0114) discloses a teaching of a core wherein channels hold the winding end at the first and second bottom corners of the inner surfaces where the mirror- image channels bend by a first angle between 0 and 90 degrees and bend a second time by a second angle that is the complement of the first angle resulting in a horizontal portion of the mirror-image channels.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a core channels hold the winding end at the first and second bottom corners of the inner surfaces where the mirror- image channels bend by a first angle between 0 and 90 degrees and bend a second time by a second angle that is the complement of the first angle resulting in a horizontal portion of the mirror-image channels as taught by Sutardja to the inductive device of Arai et al so as to reduce/restrict movement of the inductor thereby reducing the chances of the inductor moving out of place/position if dropped or relocated to a different location on the printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 4, Arai et al.(figure 1 and para 0045-0050) discloses the second termination terminates (25a5) on a top surface of the printed wire board but does not expressly discloses wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board.
Sutardja (para 0115 and figure 39) discloses a teaching wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board (see first termination of left side of drawing)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board as taught by Sutardja to the inductive device of Arai et al so as to reduce/restrict movement of the inductor thereby reducing the chances of the inductor moving out of place/position. Also, designing wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board would have been an obvious design choice based on intended application/environment use. Such as to limit movement of the inductor device.
Regarding claim 5, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “ wherein the first and second terminations are coined” has been given patentable weight. Please note that 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Arai et al.(figures 1-11 and para 0045-0080) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly discloses wherein the mirror-image channels that hold the winding end at the first and second bottom corners of the inner surfaces where the mirror- image channels bend by a first angle between 0 and 90 degrees and bend a second time by a second angle that is the complement of the first angle resulting in a horizontal portion of the mirror-image channels.
Sutardja (figure 38 and para 0114) discloses a teaching of a core wherein channels hold the winding end at the first and second bottom corners of the inner surfaces where the mirror- image channels bend by a first angle between 0 and 90 degrees and bend a second time by a second angle that is the complement of the first angle resulting in a horizontal portion of the mirror-image channels.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a core channels hold the winding end at the first and second bottom corners of the inner surfaces where the mirror- image channels bend by a first angle between 0 and 90 degrees and bend a second time by a second angle that is the complement of the first angle resulting in a horizontal portion of the mirror-image channels as taught by Sutardja to the inductive device of Arai et al so as to reduce/restrict movement of the inductor thereby reducing the chances of the inductor moving out of place/position if dropped or relocated to a different location on the printed circuit board.
5 Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al.(US 20220122765) in view of Maki (US 20210375521)
Regarding claim 6, Arai et al.(figure 1 and para 0045-0050) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly discloses wherein the inductor further comprises a wrap disposed around the core that fixes relative positions of the winding and the first and second sections of the core.
Maki (figures 1-9 and para 0034-0038) discloses a teaching inductor further comprises a wrap (3) disposed around the core that fixes relative positions of the winding and the core.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a wrap disposed around the core that fixes relative positions of the winding and the core as taught by Maki to the inductive device of Arai et al so as to reduce/restrict movement of the inductor thereby reducing the chances of the inductor moving out of place/position.
6 Claims 9-10 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al.(US 20220122765).
Regarding claims 9-10, Arai et al does not expressly discloses wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises aromatic polyamide polymer and wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises poly (m-phenylenediamine isophthalamide) paper. However, Arai et al.(para 0071) discloses wherein nonmagnetic spacer comprises a polyimide insulating material that has high insulation properties. Designing wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises aromatic polyamide polymer and wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises poly (m-phenylenediamine isophthalamide) paper would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use. Such as to allow the inductive device to have god thermal stability, high mechanical strength and high insulation properties.
Regarding claims 22-23, Arai et al does not expressly discloses wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises aromatic polyamide polymer and wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises poly (m-phenylenediamine isophthalamide) paper. However, Arai et al.(para 0071) discloses wherein nonmagnetic spacer comprises a polyimide insulating material that has high insulation properties. Designing wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises aromatic polyamide polymer and wherein the nonmagnetic spacer comprises poly (m-phenylenediamine isophthalamide) paper would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use. Such as to allow the inductive device to have god thermal stability, high mechanical strength and high insulation properties.
7 Claims 14-15 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al.(US 20220122765) in view of Ikriannikov (US 20140062446)
Regarding claim 14, Arai et al.(para 0087) discloses wherein the inductive device can be implemented with a converter system but does not expressly a converter that converts an input voltage to an output voltage that is different from the input voltage.
Ikriannikov (para 0034/0069-0097) discloses a teaching wherein a converter that converts an input voltage to an output voltage that is different from the input voltage.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a converter that converts an input voltage to an output voltage that is different from the input voltage as taught by Ikriannikov to the inductive device of Arai et al. so as to enable efficient power conversion, reduce thermal stress and improve system reliability.
Regarding claim 15, Ikriannikov (para 0034/0069-0097) discloses wherein the converter is a direct current to direct current converter that converts the input voltage to the output voltage that is less than the input voltage.
Regarding claims 24-25 discloses the claimed invention except for a non- isolated point-of-load DC-DC step-down converter with the input voltage greater than or equal to 7V and less than or equal to 14 V and the output voltage greater than or equal to 0.45 V and less than or equal to 2 V and wherein the converter is configured to carry up to 40 amperes per phase. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a non- isolated point-of-load DC-DC step-down converter with the input voltage greater than or equal to 7V and less than or equal to 14 V and the output voltage greater than or equal to 0.45 V and less than or equal to 2 V and wherein the converter is configured to carry up to 40 amperes per phase, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Such as to allow the inductive device to reduce power loss, have improved efficiency and good balanced voltage delivery.
8 Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al.(US 20220122765) in view of Ikriannikov (US 20140062446) in further view of Wang et al. (US 20210257157) and Sutardja (US 20050012586)
Regarding claim 16, Arai et al.(figure 1 and para 0045-0050) discloses the second termination terminates (25a5) on a top surface of the printed wire board but does not expressly discloses the first and second terminations each comprise a pair of shoulders that extend outward from the winding in opposite directions and wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board.
Wang et al. (figure 7 and para 0081) discloses a teaching wherein the first and second terminations each comprise a pair of shoulders that extend outward from the winding in opposite directions.
Sutardja (para 0115 and figure 39) discloses a teaching wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board (see first termination of left side of drawing)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the first and second terminations each comprise a pair of shoulders that extend outward from the winding in opposite directions as taught by Wang et al to the inductive device of Arai et al so as to improve the mechanical strength between the inductor and the printed circuit board.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board as taught by Sutardja to the inductive device of Arai et al so as to reduce/restrict movement of the inductor thereby reducing the chances of the inductor moving out of place/position. Also, designing wherein the first termination terminates in a slot in the printed wire board would have been an obvious design choice based on intended application/environment use. Such as to limit movement of the inductor device.
Regarding claim 17, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “ wherein the first and second terminations are coined” has been given patentable weight. Please note that 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Also, designing wherein the shoulders slope downward while extending outward would have been an obvious design choice based on intended application/environment use. Such as to limit movement of the inductor device.
Regarding claim 18, Ikriannikov (figures 4-6/21) discloses a switch on side of the converter. Designing wherein the second termination is disposed on a switch node side of the converter would have been an obvious design choice based on intended application/environment use. Such as to minimizes electromagnetic interference and protects switches.
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 RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights