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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the higher-order LC network between the Litz windings and the solid windings must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 16 is 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. The specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the higher-order LC network between the Litz windings and the solid windings.
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.
Claim 16 is 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. Applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of “the higher-order LC network” intended by “the higher-order LC network between the Litz windings and the solid windings”.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingenito [US 3,315,087] in view of Vinciarelli et al. [US 5,546,065].
Regarding claim 1, Ingenito discloses a magnetic device [figures 1-2], comprising:
a toroid-shaped hybrid core including a first magnetic material [141] as a first flux path that carries a low-frequency flux component and a second magnetic material [142] as a second flux path that carries a high-frequency flux component that is a higher frequency flux component than the low-frequency flux component; and
- at least one coil [116] wound around the toroidal-shaped core.
Ingenito discloses the instant claimed invention except for a copper layer around the first magnetic material.
Vinciarelli et al. disclose a magnetic device [110, figure 9] comprising:
- a toroidal shaped core structure including first and second cores [112, 114] with gaps [116] formed between;
- a copper layer [126, 128] around the core structure; and - at least one coil [122, 124] arranged on the core structure.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a copper layer around the first magnetic material of Ingenito, as suggested by Vinciarelli et al., for the purpose controlling leakage inductance and/or improving shielding.
Regarding claim 2, Ingenito discloses wherein the first magnetic material is different from the second magnetic material. Ingenito, in other embodiment of figure 11, discloses the two magnetic materials stacked on one another. Copper is a known material use for coil/winding in magnetic device.
The specific steel and ferrite materials use for the magnetic materials would have been an obvious design choice for the purpose of facilitating different magnetic fluxes/fields for the applications of the magnetic device [steel and ferrite are known magnetic material use for magnetic core structure.]
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnunen et al. [EP 2631920 A1] in view of Vinciarelli et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 18-19, Kinnunen et al. disclose a magnetic device [figure 9a], comprising:
a toroid-shaped hybrid core including a first magnetic material [91 or 92] as a first flux path that carries a low-frequency flux component and a second magnetic material [92 or 91] as a second flux path that carries a high-frequency flux component that is a higher frequency flux component than the low-frequency flux component; and
- at least one coil [93] wound around the toroidal-shaped core. Copper is a known conductor material use for coil/winding of magnetic device.
Kinnunen et al. further discloses first and second air gaps formed in the first and second magnetic cores/materials, wherein the gaps having different length/width [para 0026-0027].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the gap in the toroidal-shaped core for the purpose of controlling magnetic saturation and/or flux/field.
Kinnunen et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for a copper layer around the first magnetic material.
Vinciarelli et al. disclose a magnetic device [110, figure 9] comprising:
- a toroidal shaped core structure including first and second cores [112, 114] with gaps [116] formed between;
- a copper layer [126, 128] around the core structure; and - at least one coil [122, 124] arranged on the core structure.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a copper layer around the first magnetic material of Kinnunen et al, as suggested by Vinciarelli et al., for the purpose controlling leakage inductance and/or improving shielding.
Regarding claim 10, Kinnunen et al. disclose the high-frequency-flux component is a frequency that is at least one hundred times higher than the low-frequency-flux component [see figure 8, para 0007].
Regarding claim 20, Kinnunen et al. further discloses the first air gap arrange at a different position compare to the second air gap in the first and second magnetic cores/materials [para 0036, equation 1, and figure 10].
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnunen et al. in view of Vinciarelli et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onishi et al. [US 6,014,071].
Regarding claim 2, Kinnunen et al. the first and second material stacked on top of one another, wherein the first magnetic material is different from the second magnetic material [para 0021, 0028].
Kinnunen et al. in view of Vinciarelli et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific material of the first and second magnetic materials.
Onishi et al. discloses a magnetic device [figures 1 and 3] comprising:
- a core structure including first and second core [1, 2], wherein the first core formed of ferrite material and the second core formed of steel material; and
- a copper conductor/wire coil [4a].
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 the magnetic core materials of Onishi et al. in Kinnunen et al. for the purpose of preventing harmonic distortions and/or improving the power factor [see technical field].
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Onishi et al. discloses the second core [2] formed of silicon steel sheets [column 4, lines 9-11] and subsection [figures 18-21].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnunen et al. in view of Vinciarelli et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beddingfield et al. [WO 2019/090358 A1].
Regarding claim 9, Kinnunen et al. in view of Vinciarelli et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for at least one set of winding turns include one shorted turn.
Beddingfield et al. discloses a magnetic device includes at least one set of winding turns [figure 2B] which includes at least one shorted turn [figure 2B, para 0041].
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 shorted turn design of Beddingfield et al. in Kinnunen et al. for the purpose of preventing high-frequency AC flux from entering the ribbon due to induced eddy current of the conductor.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnunen et al.
Regarding claim 12-13, Kinnunen et al. discloses a magnetic device [figure 9a] comprising:
- a toroidal-shaped core including a first magnetic material [91 or 92] as a first flux path that carries a low-frequency flux component and a second magnetic material [92 or 91] as a second flux path that carries a high-frequency flux component that is a higher frequeny flux component than the low-frequency flux component; and
- at least one coil [93].
Kinnunen et al., further discloses at least one gap [para 0026].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the gap in the toroidal-shaped core for the purpose of controlling magnetic saturation and/or flux/field.
The magnetic device structure of Kinnunen et al. would exhibit the functionals, as claimed.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnunen et al. in view of Vinciarelli et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shen [US 2016/0148748 A1].
Kinnunen et al. in view of Vinciarelli et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for two or more magnetic materials/layers.
Shen discloses a magnetic core having more than two layers of magnetic materials [116, 118, 130, 132, figure 3] and at least one coil wound around the magnetic core, wherein the magnetic materials having different permeabilities/materials. Shen further discloses these permeabilities vary.
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 more than two layers of magnetic materials in Kinnunen et al., as suggested by Shen, for the purpose of improving core utilization and maximizing flux distribution.
The combination of Kinnunen et al., Vinciarelli et al. and Shen would have conductive shieldings [copper layer], as claimed.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii Masayoshi et al. [JP 2004-281778A] in view of Worthington [US 2013/0207767 A1].
Ishii Masayoshi et al. discloses a magnetic device [figure 11d], comprising:
a hybrid core is in form of a round enclosure configured with an outer first magnetic material [49] of an outer high-permeability steel [sendust] shell, and a second magnetic material in the form of an inner pot core [48] with a center post, wherein the pot core is hollow and encloses a coil [27].
Ishii Masayoshi et al. further disclose the use of ferrite material for the core structure.
The specific use of ferrite material for the inner core would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating different desired magnetic flux/field characteristics.
Ishii Masayoshi et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for copper shield rings between the inner core and the outer steel shell/core
Worthington discloses a magnetic device having a core structure with a center post [figure 3A], a coil structure [34] and copper shielding rings [28, 30].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include copper shielding rings in Ishii Masayoshi et al. magnetic device, for the purpose of providing conductive shielding.
Regarding claim 7, the copper shielding rings arrangement of Masayoshi et al. in combination with Worthington would provide to limit penetration of flux to outer shell/core.
Claim(s) 15-16, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii Masayoshi et al. in view of Worthington as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nesse et al. [CA 9,569,786 A1].
Regarding claim 15, Ishii Masayoshi et al., as modified, disclose the instant claimed invention except for the use of Litz coil.
Nesse et al. discloses a magnetic device [figures 1-4] comprising:
- a magnetic ferrite core structure [8, 10];
- a low frequency coil [4] in the form of solid coil with conductor [4]; and
- a high frequency coil [6] formed of Litz wires [22] and arranged in parallel with the low
frequency coil [abstract].
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 the coil design of Nesse et al. in Ishi Masayoshi et al., as modified, for the purpose of improving parasitic coupling inductance and/or parasitic capacitance.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, the specific use of the magnetic device in a higher-order LC network and its arrangement relative to the higher-order LC network would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of intended use of the magnetic device in an LC-circuit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-20 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
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.
/TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837