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 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the examiner’s statement of “laminated Layers…implies there’s an electrical insulating layer in between” is not always accurate because transition metal oxides are magnetic and inherently insulating and therefore not necessarily requiring any insulating coating.
The examiner disagree. The magnetic sheets in Racz would need to be bonded with a bonding agent to get a laminated core. Therefore, the laminated core of Racz has an insulating layer. Accordingly, Racz disclosure of “laminated layer” sufficiently meet the “insulating layer” as claimed. The rest of the arguments 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, it appears “a contoured (114) the pair of ends configured to provide application specific magnetic lines of forces” should be --a contoured (114), the pair of ends configured to provide application specific magnetic lines of forces--.
Claims 2-14 are objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the originally filed specification does not disclose “the optimum magnetic core assembly (100) having consistent airgap” as recited.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, it’s not clear what’s intended by “made of a magnetic material (90) of a combination of low thickness of the order of 0.2mm and high hardness of the order of 420 to 480 HV (on Vickers scale)” as recited in lines 2-4. Specifically, it’s not clear if each of the primary magnetic alloy and the supplementing magnetic alloy has a combination of thickness and hardness as claimed, or only one of the primary magnetic alloy and the supplementing magnetic alloy has a combination of the thickness and hardness as claimed. While the specification discloses each primary magnetic alloy and supplementing magnetic alloy has the combination of the thickness and the hardness as recited in claim 1, the specification is not read into the claim.
Applicant should also clarify “an electrically insulating layer configured to flow onto sheared edge and surface (89) of the magnetic material” as recited in lines 5-6. How can an insulating layer “flow”? Is the insulating a liquid? In the originally filed specification, the word flow is inside an open and close quotation, so it’s not clear what “flow” in the specification and the claim means. For examination purpose, the limitation in question is interpreted as the electrically insulated layer configured to “proceed continuously as smoothly” or a meaning to this effect.
In addition, it’s not clear if “a laminated core” in lines 12-13 is the same as or different from “a plurality of laminated core” of lines 7-8 and “laminated core” in line 8. Is the magnetic core assembly is made of a plurality of laminated magnetic sheets, the magnetic core assembly is made of a plurality of laminated magnetic core. A laminated core comprises a plurality of magnetic sheets.
These are mere examples of 112(b) issues that need to be resolved. Applicant is invited to carefully check each claim to conform with 112(b) requirements to expediate the prosecution.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are 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.
Each claim 3 and 4 does not further limit claim 1.
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2017/0338016 A1) in view of Ueshima et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,435,212) and Nikolic (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2018/0328974 A).
With respect to claim 01, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Racz et al., hereinafter referred to as “Racz,” teaches an optimum open magnetic core assembly 10 (FIG. 1) characterized by:
a primary magnetic alloy 1 and at least one supplementing magnetic alloy 2, made of a magnetic material, pre-coated with an electrically insulating layer (“laminated layers”) configured to flow onto sheared edge and surface (any surface) of the magnetic material;
wherein the optimum open magnetic core assembly is made of a plurality of laminated magnetic core; a required number of laminated core of the primary magnetic alloy and the supplementary magnetic alloy are grouped either in a single group of each alloy or multiple groups or are interlaced alternating the primary magnetic alloy and the supplementary magnetic alloy;
wherein the optimum magnetic core assembly has a pair of ends 110a and 10b (annotated FIG. 1) of a laminated magnetic core configured to interact with a sensor (“current sensor” para. [0056] or Hall-effect sensor), each of the pair of ends of the optimum magnetic core assembly (100) being one of a co-facing (111) and a flat (113),
“wherein a process of producing the optimum magnetic core assembly (100) is one of a wrapping based process ONE (30) when the pair of ends is the co-planar (112) and the flat (113), or a stamping based process TWO (40) when the pair of ends is the co-facing (111) and the contoured (114), or the co-planar (112) and the contoured (114), or the co-facing (111) and the flat (113);
followed by a magnetic performance treatment (50) including removal of grain growth inhibitors,
wherein the process of producing the optimum magnetic core assembly is governed by the pair of ends of the laminated magnetic core,
wherein the process of producing the optimum magnetic core assembly is decided based on a plurality of inputs on application of the optimum magnetic core assembly (100) and a level ONE of specifications,
wherein the level ONE of specifications includes a magnetic material, a lamination thickness, a hardness, a lamination shape, a shape of pole, and a core dimension” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Racz does not expressly teach
a primary magnetic alloy and at least one supplementing magnetic alloy, made of a magnetic material, made of a magnetic material of a combination of low thickness of the order of 0.2mm and high hardness of the order of 420 to 480 HV (on Vickers scale),
wherein the combination of low thickness of the order of 0.2mm and high hardness of the order of 420 to 480 HV (on Vickers scale) produces burr free laminations, the optimum magnetic core assembly (100) having consistent airgap, the insulated edges and surfaces (89) generating minimized eddy currents.
Best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Ueshima et al., hereinafter referred to as “Ueshima,” teaches a magnetic core assembly (FIG. 1) comprising a primary magnetic alloy 1 and at least one supplementing magnetic alloy 1, made of a magnetic material, made of a magnetic material of a combination of low thickness of the order of 0.2mm and high hardness of the order of 420 to 480 HV (on Vickers scale),
wherein the combination of low thickness of the order of 0.2mm and high hardness of the order of 420 to 480 HV (on Vickers scale) produces burr free laminations, the optimum magnetic core assembly (100) having consistent airgap, the insulated edges and surfaces (89) generating minimized eddy currents (col. 4, lines 50-54 and Table 1, number 14). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the thickness and hardness as taught by Ueshima to the magnetic core assembly of Racz to provide high permeability alloy having a high saturated magnetic flux density, a high effective permeability and an excellent wear resistance (col. 1, lines 6-10).
Racz does not also expressly teach the optimum magnetic core assembly configured to interact with a sensor positioned between the pair of ends.
Nikolic teaches a magnetic core assembly (FIG. 2) configured to interact with a sensor 203 positioned between the pair of ends (ends of core 202) para. [0033]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the sensor location as taught by Nikolic to the optimum magnetic core assembly of Racz to improve current measurement accuracy (para. [0033]).
With respect to claim 03, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly (100) as claimed in claim 01, wherein the magnetic material has an initial hardness of 420 to 480 HV (on Vickers scale) (Ueshima, Table 1, number 14).
With respect to claim 04, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly as claimed in claim 01, wherein the electrically insulating layer flows onto a sheared edge and a sheared surface of the magnetic material (Racz, para. [0055]).
With respect to claim 05, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly as claimed in claim 01. The process limitations
“wherein the process ONE (30) comprises the steps of:
a. Entrapping a start edge (62) of a roll of a sheet of a selected magnetic material (90) of the primary magnetic alloy (101), by folding and lockingly engaged with a slot (63) in a mandrel (64),
b. Pulling the sheet of the selected magnetic material by a tensile force Ft (65) while the mandrel (64) is rotating,
c. Applying a compressive force Fc (66) intermittently by momentarily stopping the mandrel (64) in an orthogonal plane (67),
d. Slitting the sheet on achieving a requisite width (68) of a thus wound core (91),
e. Disposing permanently a last edge of the sheet on the wound core (91),
f. Dismounting the wound core (91) by sliding the wound core (91) out of the slot (63) in the mandrel (64),
g. Passing the wound core (91) through a correction fixture (31),
h. Repeating the above steps with the supplementing magnetic alloy (102),
i. Inserting interferingly a corrected wound core (92S) of the supplementing magnetic alloy in a corrected wound core (92) of the primary magnetic alloy to arrive at a hybrid corrected core (93),
j. Slitting and slicing the hybrid corrected core (93) to obtain a bare magnetic core assembly (94),
k. Growing grains of the bare magnetic core assembly (94),
l. Vacuum impregnating the bare magnetic core assembly (94),
m. Encasing a treated magnetic core assembly (95) in a non-magnetic resin or a non-magnetic engineering plastic body” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966
With respect to claim 06, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly as claimed in claim 05. The limitation
“wherein the entrapping the start edge is by engaging a plurality of orifices, with a plurality of spring-loaded pin disposed in a second mandrel” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966
With respect to claim 07, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly (100) as claimed in claim 05. The limitation
“wherein the dismounting of the wound core from the second mandrel is by pulling back the plurality of spring-loaded pins” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966
With respect to claim 08, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly as claimed in claim 05. The limitation
“wherein the tensile force Ft is lower than a tensile strength of the sheet of the magnetic material” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966
With respect to claim 09, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly (100) as claimed in claim 05. The limitation
“wherein the corrected wound core of the supplementing magnetic alloy has an external width and an external height tending to be equal to an internal width and an internal height of the corrected core of the primary magnetic alloy” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966
With respect to claim 10, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly (100) as claimed in claim 01. The limitation
“wherein the process TWO (40) comprises the steps of:
(i) Producing a required number of primary stampings (53) of the primary magnetic alloy and a required number of supplementary stampings (53B),
(ii) Stacking the primary stampings (53) and the supplementary stampings (53B),
(iii) Compressing the primary stampings (53) and the supplementary stampings (53B) and inseparably attaching to one another through a joining means provided on each stamping, to obtain the bare optimum magnetic core (94S),
(iv) Growing a grains of the bare optimum magnetic core assembly (94S),
(v) Vacuum impregnating the bare optimum magnetic core assembly (94S),
(vi) Encasing a treated optimum magnetic core assembly (95) in a non-magnetic resin or a non-magnetic engineering plastic body” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966
With respect to claim 13, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly (100) as claimed in claim 01, wherein the plurality of laminated magnetic core are a stacking of the required number of stampings of the primary magnetic alloy and the supplementing magnetic alloy in at least a single group of each (para. [0057]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takajo et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2017/0253940 A1).
With respect to claim 02, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly as claimed in claim 01. Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic does not expressly teach the optimum core assembly (100) has a stacking factor of 96 to 99%.
Takajo et al., hereinafter referred to as “Takajo,” teaches an optimum open magnetic core assembly (FIG. 4), wherein the optimum core assembly has a stacking factor of 96 to 99% (para. [0063]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the stacking factor as taught by Takajo to the optimum open magnetic core assembly of Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic to reduce eddy currents.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic, as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Nagasugi et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2021/0194336 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly as claimed in claim 10. Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic does not expressly teach the joining means is a plurality of partially displaced projections.
Nagasugi et al., hereinafter referred to as “Nagasugi,” teaches an optimum open magnetic core assembly (FIG. 2),
wherein the joining means is a plurality of partially displaced projections 6e (para. [0023]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projections as taught by Nagasugi to the optimum open magnetic core assembly of Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic to improve mechanical stability of the magnetic core assembly.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Attarian et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2002/0145416 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly as claimed in claim 01. Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic does not expressly teach the plurality of magnetic laminations are an interlaced laminations of the primary magnetic alloy and supplementary magnetic alloy.
Attarian et al., hereinafter referred to as “Attarian,” teaches an optimum open magnetic core assembly 90 (FIG. 7C)
wherein the plurality of magnetic laminations 100-102 are an interlaced laminations of the primary magnetic alloy and supplementary magnetic alloy (para. [0065]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the interlaced laminations as taught by Attarian to the optimum open magnetic core assembly of Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic to provide low cost magnetic core, for power up, current sensing, or both, having a compact design, power-up capability, accurate circuit current sensing capability, and extended linearity range (para. [0017]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Jung (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2021/0281151 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic teaches the optimum open magnetic core assembly (100) as claimed in claim 05. Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic does not expressly teach the treated magnetic core assembly is provided with a resin coating, the treated magnetic core assembly is preheated at 250° C for 20 min, then immersed in a vibrating resin powder, for a prescribed time depending on a desired thickness of coating and a size of the treated optimum magnetic core.
Jung teaches an optimum open magnetic core assembly (FIG. 1),
wherein the magnetic core assembly 101 is provided with a resin coating (para. [0028]). The limitations “the treated magnetic core assembly is preheated at 250° C for 20 min, then immersed in a vibrating resin powder, for a prescribed time depending on a desired thickness of coating and a size of the treated optimum magnetic core” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. 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, 227 USPQ 964,966. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the resin coating as taught by Jung to the optimum open magnetic core assembly of Racz in view of Ueshima and Nikolic to protect the core assembly against foreign objects, such as moist and dust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837