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 switching circuit and one or more first capacitors disposed on a different surface of a printed circuit board 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 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 12-13 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 12, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the ends of the third and fourth coils intended by “the seventh end of the third coil being electrically connected to the sixth end of the third coil”. Claim 13 inherits the defect of the parent claim.
Regarding claims 17-18, the specific arrangements and/or connections between the ends of the first through fourth coils is/are unclear.
Regarding claim 19, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement intended by “a switching circuit configured to enable any one of the first through fourth coils to be electrically connecting the first through fourth coils”.
Regarding claim 32, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the capacitors relative to the printed circuit board and the common mode choke.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joo et al. [US 2016/0020745 A1].
Regarding claim 1-2 and 24, Joo et al. discloses a common mode choke (figure 8), comprising:
- a core (210) comprising a first and a second end opposite the first end [figures 6 and 8];
- a first coil (221), a second coil (225), a third coil (231), and a fourth coil (235) wound around the core (240), wherein the common mode choke is operative to attenuate any common mode component of a pair of signals, wherein a first signal of the pair of the signals passes through two of the first through fourth coils (221, 231, 225, 235) and a second signal of the pair of the signals passes through the other two of the first through fourth coils (221, 231, 225, 235), such that at least a part of the magnetic field created by the first signal has a direction identical to that of at least a part of the magnetic field created by the second signal (figure 8), wherein at least a portion of the core (210) has a shape of cylinder (figure 6), wherein each of the first through fourth coils (221, 231, 225, 235) has its both ends function as one or more terminals for input and/or output (figure 8).
Regarding claims 3-4, Joo et al. discloses the portion of the core (210) comprises two sub-portions (211, 215), each of which having a shape of cylinder and being adjoined to each other by joining one's top surface of cylinder to the other's top surface of cylinder (figure 8), wherein the two sub-portions are joined together in a mirror symmetric manner (figure 8).
Regarding claim 10, Joo et al. discloses the first through fourth coils (221, 231, 225, 235) are wound around the lateral surface of the portion of the core (210) in a non-overlapping manner and in a sequential order (figures 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 27, Joo et al. further discloses one or more first capacitors (265) are electrically connected between a first path along which the first signal passes and a second path along which the second signal passes, the first path comprising the first coil (221) and the second coil (231) and the second path comprising the third coil (225) and the fourth coil (235).
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) 5-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. in view of Zenei et al. [JP 2004-214334A].
Regarding claim 5, Joo et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the two sub-portions joined by epoxy adhesive.
Zenei et al. discloses a common mode choke coil comprising: a core structure (50) formed of two portions (50a, 50b) that are joined together by adhesive (para 0027).
Resin or epoxy adhesive is known material use for joining core elements.
Regarding claim 6, Zenei et al. an air gap between the two sub-portions of the core (50a, 50b, para 0042, or 10, 11 of figure 9).
Regarding claim 7, the specific dimension of the air gap would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intended magnetic flux/field and/or desired magnetic leakage and/or coupling between the coils.
Regarding claim 8, Joo et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the portion of the core is integrally formed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrally formed/joined the core portions of Joo et al., since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 9, the specific EP shapes of the core would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intended applications and/or environments uses.
Regarding claim 11, Joo et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the same winding direction for the coils.
Zenei et al. discloses winding the coils (4, 5, 6, 7 or 36, 37, 46, 47) in the same direction for the common mode choke coil.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to wind the coils of Joo et al. in the same direction, as suggested by Zenei et al., for the purpose of facilitating the desired inductance and/or magnetic field.
Regarding claims 12-13, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, Joo et al. discloses the first coil (221) has a first end and a second end, and the second coil (231) has a third end and a fourth end, the third end of the second coil (231) being electrically connected to the second end of the first coil (221) at (224/224a, wherein the third coil (225) has a fifth end and a sixth end, and the fourth coil (235) has a seventh end and an eighth end. Joo et al. further discloses the sixth end of the third coil electrically connected to the seventh end of the fourth coil, wherein the first signal is input via the first end of the first coil (221) and output via the fourth end of the second coil (231), while the second signal is input via the eighth end of the fourth coil (235) and output via the fifth end of the third coil (225, also see figures 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 14, Joo et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific winding direction.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to wound the coils of Joo et al. between first/second and third/fourth coils in opposite direction for the purpose of facilitating different magnetic field/flux desired and/or characteristics.
Regarding claims 17-18, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, the specific of end connections between the first through fourth coils and input/output terminals of the coils would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intended applications and/or environments uses.
Regarding claim 19, Joo et al. further discloses a switching circuit (160/161) configured to enable anyone of the first through fourth coils of the common mode choke. The specific switching circuit configuration and/or enablement would have been obvious design consideration for providing switching power and configure to have different coils arrangement and/or connections.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, the specific arrangement of the capacitor on the printed circuit board would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating mounting and/or internal/external connections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
[1] Drawings, from figures 6A, 7-10 and 12 show a switching circuit and one or more first capacitors are disposed on a different surface of a printed circuit board (PCB) than the surface of the PCB on which the common mode choke is disposed;
[2] The specification and figures 4A-4B, 6A, 7-10 and 12 disclose the first, second, third and fourth coils with ends [221-1, 221-2, 222-3, 222-4, 223-5, 223-6, 224-7 and 223-4;
[3] Figures 6 and 8 of Joo shows the core include two sides, a primary side and a secondary side wherein the two sides of the core comprise two sides of a continuous closed shape, such as a square or rectangle. Applicant’s core in Figure 4A is a linear core and thus the core comprises a first end and a second end opposite the first end, as amended.
The Examiner disagrees.
Regarding [1], Figures 6A, 7-19 and 12 do not show a switching circuit and one or more first capacitors are disposed on a different surface of a printed circuit board (PCB) than the surface of the PCB on which the common mode choke is disposed
Regarding [2], claim 12, as amended, recites “the seventh end of the third coil being electrically connected to the sixth end of the third coil”. This is unclear. Claims 17-18 are still unclear on connections and signal inputs.
Regarding [3], applicant has not claimed, nor has examiner considered, a liner core structure. The core structure of Joo in figures 6 and 8 show a first end and a second end opposite the first end with the first, second, third and fourth coils wound around the core between the first and second end.
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.
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