DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-16 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0319409 (A1) to Theisen et al. (“Theisen”).
Regarding claims 12-16, the claims remain rejected for the same reasons presented in the Office action dated 03/05/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Theisen. Theisen does not teach or suggest a magnetic core comprising the claimed inductance ratio (L10/L100) in combination with the claimed crystallinity degree, Si content, and magnetic permeability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6 (bridging paragraph), filed 06/05/2026, with respect to Theisen have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11 have been withdrawn.
Upon further reconsideration of US 2010/0201474 (A1) to Saito et al. (“Saito”), the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-16 over Saito or Saito in view of US 4,881,989 (A) to Yoshizawa et al. (“Yoshizawa”) are withdrawn. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Saito and Saito in view of Yoshizawa are moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 with respect to Theisen and claims 12-16 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Theisen’s inductance ratio (L10/L100) would not inherently possess a ratio of 1.5 or lower given that permeability (µ), which is proportional to inductance (L), exceeds 1.5 (µ at 10 kHz = 75,000 | µ at 100 kHz = 13,000 | 75,000/13,000 = approximately 5.77).
In response, the argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., L10/L100 ratio of 1.5 or lower) is not recited in claims 12-16. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145(VI), citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is noted that the magnetic properties of toroidal cores in Theisen approximate Comparative Example 2 of the instant specification with respect to crystallinity degree, average crystal grain size, and relative scale of magnetic permeability at 10 kHz and 100 kHz. Theisen is silent regarding the magnetic permeability at 1 MHz. However, given that the physical structure, chemical composition, and magnetic properties noted above approximate those of Comparative Example 2 and that Comparative Example 2 possesses an inductance ratio L100/L1M that falls within the range of claim 12, one would expect Theisen to also have the same or substantially the same inductance ratio L100/L1M.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
August 03, 2026
Prosecution Insights