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
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. [U.S. Publication No. 2017/0104419 A1] (provided in IDS) in view of Todorov [U.S. Publication No. 2017/0178795 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Zeng discloses a magnetic core of an electronic assembly (e.g., magnetic core shown in Fig. 1E, Paragraph 0100), comprising:
a center region (e.g., area of the core in the same level as the PCB and semiconductor units Actives, Paragraph 0100, Fig. 1C and between upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140, Fig. 1A),
a base (e.g., lower portion core 140, Fig. 1A, 1E), and
a cover (e.g., upper portion of core 130, Fig. 1A, 1E), wherein the center region (e.g., area of the core in the same level as the PCB and semiconductor units Actives) is arranged between the base (e.g., lower portion of core 140) and the cover (e.g., upper portion of core 130),
wherein a through-opening (e.g., chamber through upper core and lower core where PCB and semiconductor units Actives are disposed, see Fig. 1C) with a center line (e.g., middle axis of the chamber where PCB and semiconductor units Actives are disposed on lower core, see Fig. 1A, 1B) is formed in the center region,
a first cross-sectional area of the center region (e.g., core cross-sectional area shown in Fig. 1B) in a first section plane is parallel to the base (e.g., lower core 140) and in which the center line is located,
a second cross-sectional area (e.g., upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140 cross-sectional area shown in Fig. 1A) of the magnetic core in a second section plane is perpendicular to the first section plane (section plane parallel to the base lower core) and in which the center line is located.
Zeng discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for wherein the first cross-sectional area is substantially equal to the second cross-sectional area.
However, Zeng, Paragraph 0114, discloses that the cross-sectional area of the core in the electronic assembly is important for the inductance value in a closely combined magnetic-conductive assembly core and other components, e.g., in a power converter. In Paragraph 0128, Zeng discloses that it is helpful to reduce the height of the magnetic-conductive assembly. Therefore, the second core cross-sectional shown in Fig. 1A can be reduced in height so that its cross-sectional area be substantially the same as the first core cross-sectional area shown in Fig. 1B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first cross-sectional area substantially equal to the second cross-sectional area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first cross-sectional area be substantially equal to the second cross-sectional area as discussed above to guarantee the same magnetic density to maximize inductance value.
Zeng discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for wherein the base and the cover protrude beyond the center region in a direction of the center line on at least two mutually opposing sides.
Todorov discloses base (e.g., 130, can be a base depending on the device orientation, Fig. 1A as paired with core 128 of Fig. 2) and cover (e.g., 128 of Fig. 2) protrude beyond a center region (e.g., region between channels 200 and 202, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0025) in a direction of the center line on at least two mutually opposing sides.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base and the cover protrude beyond the center region in a direction of the center line on at least two mutually opposing sides as taught by Todorov to the structure of Zeng to provide the magnetic core electronic assembly with recesses on both ends to keep other components mounted on PCB within the core footprint to miniaturized the size of the device.
Zeng discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for the base is formed in the shape of a planar plate.
Todorov further discloses the base 130 is formed in the shape of a planar plate (see Fig. 1A to 1E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base formed in the shape of a planar plate as taught by Todorov to the magnetic core assembly of Zeng to provide the device with a lower height structure which is necessary to help reduce the size of the assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Todorov discloses wherein the base (e.g., 130) and the cover (e.g., 128) protrude by at least 5% of a length of the center region (e.g., length of center region is about 8mm considering total length of the device is about 10mm, Paragraph 0023, minus the thickness of the recessed conductor 124/126 about 1mm from opposing sides; makes the recess on both ends at least 5% of 8mm).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng discloses wherein the center region (e.g., core region between upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140) has a first height (same height as the through opening where PCB and Actives are disposed) in a direction perpendicular to the base (e.g., perpendicular to base 140), which height is at least 10% of a total height of the magnetic core (i.e., total of height of upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140).
Regarding claim 4, Todorov discloses base (e.g., 130, can be a base depending on the device orientation, Fig. 1A as paired with core 128 of Fig. 2) and cover (e.g., 128 of Fig. 2) protrude beyond a center region (e.g., region between channels 200 and 202, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0025) in a direction of the center line on both sides.
Regarding claim 5, Zeng discloses wherein the through-opening (e.g., chamber through upper core and lower core where PCB and semiconductor units Actives are disposed, see Fig. 1C) extends from the base (e.g., lower portion of core 140) to the cover (e.g., upper portion of core 130).
Regarding claim 6, Zeng discloses wherein the base (e.g., lower portion of core 140, excluding the center region) and the cover (e.g., upper portion of core 130, excluding the portion of the center region) are each formed in the shape of a cuboidal plate (see Fig. 1E).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng discloses wherein the magnetic core is formed in two parts (e.g., upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140) (Fig. 1E).
Regarding claim 8, Zeng discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for wherein a gap is formed between the center region and the base.
Todorov discloses wherein a gap (e.g., material other than magnetic core forms the gap) is formed between the center region (e.g., region bounded by channels 200, 202 and 204, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0025) and the base 130.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gap formed between center region and the base as taught by Todorov to the core of Zeng to provide the device with a minimal magnetic reluctance to help improve magnetic saturation characteristic.
Regarding claim 9, Zeng discloses wherein the center region (e.g., area of the core in the same level as the PCB and semiconductor units Actives, Paragraph 0100, Fig. 1C and between upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140, Fig. 1A), the base (e.g., lower portion of core 140, Fig. 1A) and the cover (upper portion of core 130) are formed in one piece (see Paragraph 0100, Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 11, Zeng discloses an electronic assembly, comprising: a magnetic core (e.g., comprising 130, 140, Fig. 1A) and a printed circuit board (e.g., PCB), which penetrates through the through-opening and is arranged parallel to the base (e.g., lower portion of core 140) of the magnetic core.
Regarding claim 12, Zeng discloses furthermore comprising at least one electronic component (e.g., semiconductor unit Actives, Paragraph 0100, Fig. 1A), which is on the printed circuit board (PCB) and is at least partially covered by the base and the cover of the magnetic core.
Regarding claim 13, Todorov discloses wherein the base (e.g., 130) and the cover (e.g., 128) protrude by at least 10% of a length of the center region (e.g., length of center region is about 8mm considering total length of the device is about 10mm, Paragraph 0023, minus the thickness of the recessed conductor 124/126 about 1mm from opposing sides; makes the recess on both ends at least 10% of 8mm).
Regarding claim 14, Zeng in view of Todorov discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for wherein the base and the cover protrude by a maximum of 50% of the length of the center region.
However, Todorov discloses wherein the base (e.g., 130) and the cover (e.g., 128) protrude by at least 10% of a length of the center region as discussed in claim 13.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the base and the cover protrude by a maximum of 50% of the length of the center region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 11 of the Specification, applicant has disclosed similar criticality as the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base and the cover protrude by a maximum of 50% of the length of the center region as discussed above to further reduce the volume of the device for being closely accommodated with other circuit components.
Regarding claim 15, Zeng in view of Todorov discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for an explicit disclosure that the first height is at least 20% of a total height of the magnetic core.
However, Zeng discloses the center region (e.g., core region between upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140) has a first height (same height as the through opening where PCB and Actives are disposed) in a direction perpendicular to the base (e.g., perpendicular to base 140), which height is at least 10% of a total height of the magnetic core (i.e., total of height of upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140), in claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first height is at least 20% of a total height of the magnetic core, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 12 of the Specification, applicant has disclosed similar criticality as the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first height is at least 20% of a total height of the magnetic core as discussed above to further reduce the volume of the device for being closely accommodated with other circuit components.
Regarding claim 16, Zeng in view of Todorov discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for an explicit disclosure that the first height is at least 40% of a total height of the magnetic core.
However, Zeng discloses the center region (e.g., core region between upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140) has a first height (same height as the through opening where PCB and Actives are disposed) in a direction perpendicular to the base (e.g., perpendicular to base 140), which height is at least 10% of a total height of the magnetic core (i.e., total of height of upper portion of core 130 and lower portion of core 140), in claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first height is at least 40% of a total height of the magnetic core, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 12 of the Specification, applicant has disclosed similar criticality as the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first height is at least 40% of a total height of the magnetic core as discussed above to further reduce the volume of the device for being closely accommodated with other circuit components.
Regarding claim 17, Todorov discloses base (e.g., 130, can be a base depending on the device orientation, Fig. 1A as paired with core 128 of Fig. 2) and cover (e.g., 128 of Fig. 2) protrude beyond the center region (e.g., region between channels 200 and 202, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0025) in a direction of the center line on both sides symmetrically.
Regarding claim 18, Zeng discloses wherein the base (e.g., lower portion of core 140, Fig. 1A) and the cover (e.g., upper portion of core 130, Fig. 1A) are arranged parallel to one another (see Fig. 1E as well).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Todorov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stratakos et al. [U.S. Patent No. 8350658 B1].
Regarding claim 10, Zeng discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for comprising two center regions, each with a through-opening, wherein the two center regions adjoin one another directly in a direction perpendicular to the second section plane.
Stratakos discloses magnetic core (e.g., comprising cores 111, 112) comprising two center regions (e.g., two adjacent center regions comprising at least three vertical legs of core 111, column 11, lines 20-45, Fig. 15), each with a through-opening (e.g., 117), wherein the two center regions adjoin one another directly in a direction perpendicular to a second section plane (vertical cross section of the core).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two center regions, each with a through-opening, wherein the two center regions adjoin one another directly in a direction perpendicular to the second section plane as taught by Stratakos to the structure of Zeng in view of Todorov to provide a multiphase inductive device to accommodate demanding integrated circuits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
According to the Applicant, the Examiner's proposed combination fails to teach or suggest a magnetic core including both a base and a cover that protrude beyond a center region in a direction of a center line on at least two mutually opposing sides as required in claim 1.
The Applicant argues that Todorov's base (i.e., Todorov's upper section 130) merely contacts conductor 102 while only Todorov's cover (i.e., Todorov's lower section 128) receives the conductor 102 in channels 200, 202, and 204 partially defined by side faces 110, 112 to receive the conductor 102. According to Applicant, Todorov's side faces 110, 112 are only formed on a singular portion of Todorov's magnetic core 104. Thus, if the Examiner's proposed modification was made to Zeng’s power converting device, only one, but not both, of Zeng's alleged base and cover (i.e., Zeng's first magnetic layer 130 and second magnetic layer 140, respectively) would be modified to include Todorov's side faces 110, 112.
The Applicant is correct, only one, which in this case the magnetic layer 130 would be modified. However, the Examiner does not agree on the modification suggested by the applicant. According to the Applicant, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Zeng's alleged base and cover (Zeng's lower core 140 and upper core 130, respectively) to protrude beyond a center region. The Applicant is in the understanding that to modify Zeng’s core layers in terms of Todorov’s, the outer dimensions have to increase laterally or longitudinally (e.g., height or width).
The Examiner has not suggested increasing outside dimensions of the either magnetic layer 130 nor 140 of Zeng. The Examiner, as stated in page 5 of the Office Action on 07/20/2025, the motivation is to provide the magnetic core electronic assembly with recess on both ends to keep other components mounted on PCB within the existing core footprint to maintain miniaturization of the device and not extending the outer dimensions of the core.
Therefore, Zeng in view of Todorov teach or suggest a magnetic core including both a base and a cover that protrude beyond a center region in a direction of a center line on at least two mutually opposing sides as required in claim 1.
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 JOSELITO SASIS BAISA whose telephone number is (571)272-7132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM to 4PM.
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.
/J.S.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837