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 .
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) 1-3, 5-11 and 18-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabih et al. [Nabih et al. US 2020/0350117 A1] in view of Singh [UK 630761 A].
Regarding claim 1, Nabih et al. discloses a magnetic device [figures 3-16C], comprising:
- M magnetic elements comprising M middle legs [C1, C2, C3, figure 16C], wherein the M middle legs arranged in sequence [figure 16C];
- 2N lateral legs [T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8], arranged around the M middle legs, a portion of lateral legs of the 2N lateral legs located on a first side of the M middle legs, and another portion of lateral legs of the 2N lateral legs located on a second side of the M middle legs, and M and N are integers greater than 1; and
- a plurality of planar coils [figures 3-4 and 7-10] arranged with the core legs.
Nabih et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific of the M magnetic elements and the coils.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to “separate” the M element into M elements for the purpose of facilitating manufacturing and/or assembling the core/coil.
Singh discloses a magnetic device comprising:
- a magnetic core structure having a middle leg and a plurality of lateral legs [17, 18];
- a single coil [14] wounds around the middle leg, wherein the single coil having at least one turn around the middle leg, and
- a plurality of coils [15, 16, 19, 20] wound around lateral legs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the coil arrangement of Singh in Nabih et al. for the purpose of facilitating different and/or desired magnetic flux/field characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Singh discloses the second winding having ends for connecting to external device.
The specific external inductor [or parasitic inductor] connecting to the second coil would have been an obvious consideration for the purpose of intended usage.
Regarding claim 3, the coil arrangement of Nabih et al. on a printed circuit board in combination of second coil of Singh would have a plurality of portions connected in serial and forming a single coil.
Regarding claim 5, Singh also discloses different current flowing though the coils
5. The magnetic device according to claim 1, wherein directions of DC currents flowing through the 2N first windings are identical.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nabih et al. and Singh would have at least two lateral legs of the 2N lateral legs and at least two first windings of the 2N first windings wound around the at least two lateral legs are located on a first side of the M middle legs, and the other lateral legs of the 2N lateral legs and the other first windings of the 2N first windings wound around the other lateral legs are located on a second side of the M middle legs.
Regarding claims 7-11, Nabih et al. discloses the magnetic device further comprises W magnetic cover pair [figure 16C], and the magnetic cover pairs, at least one middle leg of the M middle legs and at least two lateral legs of the 2N lateral legs are collaboratively formed as one magnetic element. Nabih et al. also discloses different phases arranged at an angle [figures 4, 7 and 10].
The specific phase of the coil and/or angle different of the legs would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating different environments and/or applications uses.
Regarding claim 18, Singh discloses different magnetic direction between the middle leg and the lateral legs [see figure and specification].
Regarding claim 19, Nabih et al. discloses the M middle legs and the 2N lateral legs are made of a single magnetic material [or same material]. Ferrite is a known magnetic material use in magnetic core for magnetic component.
Regarding claim 21, Nabih et al. further discloses air gap [para 0034 or gap 380, figure 8] between the core and different resistances between the coils and the magnetic core. The specific magnetic resistance would have been an obvious design consideration based on the specific air gap between the magnetic core.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabih et al. in view of Singh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chandrasekaran et al. [US 6,980,077 B1].
Nabih et al. in view of Singh disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific material for the legs.
Chandrasekaran et al. discloses a magnetic component [figures 6a-6b, 8a-9c, 10a] having a plurality of core legs formed of different magnetic material [ferrite material for legs 52, and different material 54 of iron powder for a middle leg]
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use different magnetic material for the legs of Nabih et al., as suggested by Chandrasekaran et al., for the purpose of preventing fringing flux and/or controlling/facilitating different magnetic flux/field in the magnetic component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 17 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-14 and 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1996. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
