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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 cites “the fixation hole”. Appropriate correction is required to address lack of antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 20220285071; “Zhang” hereinafter), in view of Miki (JP 3351993; “Miki” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses: a magnetic core device, comprising:
a magnetic core (21, 231-234, fig. 3b) comprising two E-shaped portion (211, 212, fig. 3c), wherein the core comprises several passages comprising openings that overlap each other in a direction from a bottom of the core to a top of the core (see annotated fig. 3c below).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose:
a body
at least one fixation leg, which extends from the body and is configured to firmly fixate the magnetic core device to a target component, the at least one fixation leg and the body being integrally formed as one-piece, wherein the body comprises several passages that overlap each other in a direction from a bottom of the body to a top of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Miki teaches:
a body (1, fig. 1).
two fixation leg (2, fig. 1), which extends from sidewalls (see “SW” in annotated fig. 1, below) of a body (fig. 1) and is configured to firmly fixate the magnetic core device to a target component (inverter ¶[0021]), the at least one fixation leg and the body being integrally formed as one-piece (as disclosed upon examination of figures 1 and 3), wherein the body comprises a passage (see annotated fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
373
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with Miki such that the magnetic core device of Zhang comprises a body configured to Zhang’s magnetic core architecture, two fixation legs extending from sidewalls (parallel to where Zhang’s elements 231-234, one from where 232-232 are disposed, and another from 233-234 are disposed), from said body and is configured to firmly fixate the magnetic core device to a target component, the at least one fixation leg and the body being integrally formed as one-piece, wherein the body comprises several passages that overlap each other in a direction from a bottom of the body to a top of the body to match Zhang’s openings and configured to Zhang’s design architecture, as claimed, in order to provide a housing for the magnetic core with the ability of being fixed to a target component (¶[0021]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the combination further discloses: wherein:
the at least one fixation leg (2, Miki) extends from at least one of sidewalls (SW, of sidewalls SW and 6 as per the combination described in claim 1, see annotated figs. 1 and 3 below, and fig. 2, Miki) of the body (1, Miki) and/or from the bottom of the body, and
the magnetic core device further comprising at least one passage comprising openings (annotated fig. 3c above, Zhang) located at two opposite sidewalls (6 and opposing SW, see annotated fig. 3 below, Miki) of the body (1, Miki), the at least one passage being configured to allow at least one electrical conductor (221, and 222, figs. 3b-3B, ¶[0075], [0077]) to pass through.
PNG
media_image2.png
500
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Miki further discloses: wherein the at least one fixation leg (2) and the openings are not located at a same sidewall of the body (annotated figs. 1 and 3 above discloses this limitation, via the combination describes in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the at least one fixation leg (2) comprises a main fixation hole (5, fig.1) corresponding to a target fixation hole located at a fixation point of the target component (the inverter previously disclosed in claim 1), so that by driving a screw (8a, fig. 1) or a rivet into the main fixation hole (5) and the target fixation hole, the at least one fixation leg (2) is fixed to the fixation point of the target component (as disclosed upon examination of ¶[0021]-[0022]).
PNG
media_image4.png
305
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Miki further discloses: further comprising plural fixation legs (fig.1, ¶[0022]) extending from two opposite sidewalls (annotated as ‘SW’ in annotated fig.1 below, and the combination described in claim 1 teaches this limitation) of the body (1), the fixation legs (2) being integrally formed with the two opposite sidewalls (as clearly disclosed in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses: wherein the body (1) comprises a holder (portion of the body comprising element 4) configured to at least partially accommodate the magnetic core (¶[0021]), wherein the at least one fixation leg (2) extends from the holder (4) and is integrally formed with the holder (4) as one-piece (as clearly disclosed in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 9, and the combination further discloses:
wherein the sidewalls (SW in annotated fig. 1 above, Miki) of the body (1, Miki) are sidewalls of the holder (via the combination described in claim 1) which define a core chamber (as illustrated in fig. 1, Miki) configured to accommodate the magnetic core (¶[0021], Miki).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 10, and Miki further discloses:
wherein the holder (4) comprises a holder cap (6, fig. 1) configured to close a chamber opening of the core chamber (¶[0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 11, and further discloses:
wherein the holder cap (6) is different from the at least one sidewall (SW) where the at least one fixation leg (2) is located (annotated fig. 1 above and the combination described in claim 1 discloses this limitation).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Miki as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Yasunishi et al (EP 3312854; “Yasunishi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one fixation leg comprises an insert comprising a central hole corresponding to the fixation hole; the insert being embedded in the at least one fixation leg and utilized as a compression limiter made of a metal material or of plastic.
However, Yasunishi teaches:
one fixation leg (23, fig. 1A) comprises an insert (25, fig. 1A) comprising a central hole (21A, fig. 1A) corresponding to a fixation hole (hole where element 25 located); the insert (25) being embedded in the at least one fixation leg (figs. 1A-1B) and utilized as a compression limiter (“Furthermore, deformation of the inner peripheral surface of the through-hole 21A due to force received from the shaft portion can be reduced”, ¶[0026]) made of a metal material or of plastic (¶[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Miki’s fixation leg and include Yasunishi’s insert, in order to reduce deformation to the fixation leg due to tightening force of the screw when fixed to the target component.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Miki, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Okada (JP2014222974; “Okada” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
comprising at least one auxiliary fastener being located on the bottom of the body and being adapted to engage, by clipping or snapping, with at least one interlocking fastener arranged on the target component.
However, Okada discloses:
at least one auxiliary fastener (72, fig. 6) being located on the bottom of a body (71, fig. 6) and being adapted to engage, by clipping or snapping (figs. 4 and 6, ¶[0031], ¶[0033], ¶[0039]), with at least one interlocking fastener (21, fig. 6) arranged on a target component (20, fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Miki with Okada’s teaching so that at least one auxiliary fastener being located on the bottom of the body and being adapted to engage, by clipping or snapping, with at least one interlocking fastener arranged on the target component, for the advantage of fixing the body at more than one point with the target component (¶[0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Miki and Okada teaches the limitations of claim 6, and Okada further discloses: wherein the at least one auxiliary fastener (22) is made integrally with the body (51) as one-piece (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 4 and 6).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Miki as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Yoshino et al (JP2014096538; “ Yoshino” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the holder is in the shape of a shallow-plate with a raised edge, and is configured to hold the magnetic core.
However, Yoshino discloses:
a holder (17, fig. 1) is in the shape of a shallow-plate (37) with a raised edge (39, 41, fig. 1), and is configured to hold a magnetic core (7, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang in view of Miki with Yoshino, such that the holder is in the shape of a shallow-plate with a raised edge, and is configured to hold the magnetic core, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Yoshino. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known configurations of securing / holding a magnetic core withing a housing according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 9, and the combination further teaches, wherein:
the magnetic core is made of one or any combination of a nanocrystalline material, a ferrite material, and an iron powder material (Zhang ¶[0002]),¶[0021]; Miki ¶[0117]),
the magnetic core comprising two E-shaped portions or two U-shaped portions (figs. 3b-3c, 9b-9c, Zhang).
Zhang in view of Miki does not explicitly disclose:
the holder is made of an insulating material; and
However, Yoshino discloses:
a holder (17, fig. 1) is made of an insulating material (¶[0017], ¶[0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Yoshino’s teaching into Zhang as modified by Miki, so that the holder is made of an insulating material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of engineering choice (MPEP 2144.07).The modification would prevent eddy currents and to provide electrical isolation for safety and proper function.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Miki as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takano (JP 2011192825; “Takano” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Miki teaches:
a magnetic core device according to claim 1, comprising a
body (1), and at least one fixation leg (2) configured to firmly fixate the magnetic
core device to a target component (inverter ¶[0021]), wherein the at least one fixation leg extends from the body and is integrally formed with the body as one- piece (as disclosed upon examination of figures 1 and 3).
Zhang in view of Miki does not explicitly disclose:
the magnetic core device fixed to the housing of a power converter, and configured to accommodate the magnetic core device.
However, Takano discloses:
a magnetic core device (1 and 6, fig. 1-4) comprising a body (6) and at least one fixation leg (6f, fig. 2) configured to firmly fixate the magnetic core device to a housing (4) of a power inverter (¶[0022]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang in view of Miki with Takano, to meet the limitation of claim 15, in order to suppress unwanted harmonics and electromagnetic interference (EMI) from the power inverter. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Takano. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Miki as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tamashiro et al (US 20230386734; “Tamashiro” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Miki discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising at least one insulation layer made of an insulating material and configured to separate the magnetic core and at least one electrical conductor that passes through the magnetic core.
However, Tamashiro discloses:
at least one insulation layer (40 fig. 4) made of an insulating material (¶[0034]) and configured to separate a magnetic core (60, figs. 3-4, 12) and at least one electrical conductor (20, figs. 1-4) that passes through the magnetic core (figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang in view of Miki, with Tamashiro, such that at least one insulation layer made of an insulating material and configured to separate the magnetic core and at least one electrical conductor that passes through the magnetic core, in order to prevent the electric conductor from being electrically connected to the magnetic core, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Tamashiro. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841