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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the objection to the drawings should be withdrawn since FIG. 5 shows an example of the planar inductor including multiple coils. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 4 of the applicant’s invention discloses a third coil comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns, wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns; a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace; and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b. Newly added FIG. 5 show does not show the structural features of claim 4. As previously mentioned in the previous office action, the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Accordingly, the objection will remain in the office action.
The applicant argues that Tonoyama does not read on the applicant claimed invention since Tonoyama describes conductor patterns 18A and 18B as planar spiral patterns and states that a winding wire may have, for example, a height of 80 to 120 µm, a width of 70 to 85 µm, and a winding pitch of 10 to 15 µm. Tonoyama, does not include that the distance between each of the turns is uniform and that this uniform distance is used to determine or define physical positioning or sizing of the coils or the layers. In particular, Tonoyama does not disclose that the uniform distance is used to determine or define physical positioning or sizing in accordance with the ratio of a/b in which b is the uniform distance. At most, Tonoyama discloses example dimensional ranges for conductor patterns. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As pointed out by the applicant, para 0035 of Tonoyama describes ranges on how the inductor device can be made in regards to the width, height and winding pitch. Since these ranges are available; the user has the ability to design the inductor into many different sizes depending on what real world design the inductor is needed to be implemented into. Once the final product/design is decided upon, the final product design will have uniformity; for example, such has deciding that in the final product/design, the inductor will have a height of 80µm, a width of 70 µm, and a winding pitch of 10 µm. One of ordinary skill in the art will reasonably know that if there was no uniformity in the final product/design the cost and time of making the inductor device would be very immense. Also, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7) clearly discloses structural features in which, a can represents the width of the first trace and b can represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns that meets the claimed criteria of the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b. The applicant is claiming a structural claim; there is no structural difference in the prior art of Tonoyama et al that does not allow for the prior art to read on the applicant claimed structural invention. The ratio for a/b does not even require any number value to be met in claim 1 and 5. It just simply states a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. Tonoyama et al clearly discloses a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns; a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace which meets the structural limitations of the applicant invention. By Tonoyama et al having the same structural features of the applicant claimed invention, allows the prior art the capability wherein the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized by the ratio a/b. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
The applicant argues that Suzuki describes a coil having a plurality of windings and multiple coil conductor layers, and states that the thicknesses of the lower, intermediate, and upper coil portions may be the same or different. See Suzuki, para. [0035] and [0037]. This disclosure concerns coil portions and their thicknesses; it does not concern a distance between each of the turns nor that a uniform distance is used to determine or define physical positioning or sizing in accordance with the ratio of a/b in
which b is the uniform distance. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As mentioned in the previous office action claims 1 and 5, Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) discloses a first coil (13) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 4); and a second coil (14) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figures 4); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0024-0050). Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) clearly discloses structural features in which, a can represents the width of the first trace and b can represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns that meets the claimed criteria of the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b. The applicant is claiming a structural claim; there is no structural difference in the prior art of Suzuki et al that does not allow for the prior art to read on the applicant claimed structural invention. The ratio for a/b does not even require any number value to be met in claim 1 and 5. It just simply states a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. Suzuki et al clearly discloses a width of the first trace and a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns which meets the structural limitations of the applicant invention. By Suzuki et al having the same structural features of the applicant claimed invention, allows the prior art the capability wherein the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized by the ratio a/b. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
The applicant argues that Karino describes an arrangement of coil conductor layers in a multilayer body, including coil conductor layer 30a and related coil structure. See Karino, para. [0109] and [0112]. However, Karino does not disclose that the distance between each of the turns is uniform nor that the uniform distance is used to determine or define physical positioning or sizing in accordance with the ratio of a/b in which b is the uniform distance. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As mentioned in the previous office action claims 1 and 5 claims 1 and 5, Karino et al. (figures 8a-8b and para 0038-0111) discloses a first coil (30a) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 8b); and a second coil (32a) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 8b); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 8b); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0109-0112)
Karino et al. (figures 8a-8b and para 0038-0111) clearly discloses structural features in which, a can represents the width of the first trace and b can represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns that meets the claimed criteria of the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b. The applicant is claiming a structural claim; there is no structural difference in the prior art of Suzuki et al that does not allow for the prior art to read on the applicant claimed structural invention. The ratio for a/b does not even require any number value to be met in claim 1 and 5. It just simply states a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. Karino et al clearly discloses a width of the first trace and a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns which meets the structural limitations of the applicant invention. By Karino et al having the same structural features of the applicant claimed invention, allows the prior art the capability wherein the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized by the ratio a/b. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
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 a third coil comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns, wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns; a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace; and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b 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 § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tonoyama et al. (US 2013/0249664).
Regarding claim 1, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses a first coil (18a) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 2); and a second coil (18b) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 2), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 4); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0027-0033)
Regarding claim 5, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (18a/18b); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 2); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 2), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (see para 0027-0033)
2. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 20180286568).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) discloses a first coil (13) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 4); and a second coil (14) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figures 4); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0024-0050 and figure 4)
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) discloses a third coil (15) comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace (see figure 4); and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b. .(see para 0024-0050 and figure 4)
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (12); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 4); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (see para 0024-0050 and figure 4)
3. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Karino et al. (US 2017/0125154).
Regarding claim 1, Karino et al. (figures 8a-8b and para 0038-0141) discloses a first coil (30a) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 8b); and a second coil (32a) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 8b ); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 8b); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0132-0141)
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki (figure 8b) discloses a third coil (34a) comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns (see figure 8b); a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace (see figure 8b); and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b. .(see para 0132-0141)
Regarding claim 5, MI et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0039) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (30a/32a); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 8b); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 8b); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (see para 0132-0141)
4. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20200168375).
Regarding claim 1, Park et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0090) discloses a first coil (311) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figures 1-3); and a second coil (312) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figures 1-3), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figures 2-3 and para 0086); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figures 2-3 and para 0086); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see figures 2-3 and para 0086)
Regarding claim 5, Park et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0090) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (300); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figures 2-3); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figures 2-3), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (figures 2-3 and para 0086); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (figures 2-3 and para 0086)
5 Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (US 20160035477).
Regarding claim 1, Yeh et al. (figure 4 and para 0038-0039/0050) discloses a first coil (41) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 4); and a second coil (42) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see para 0039), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4 and para 0039); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 4 and para 0039); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.( see figure 4 and para 0039)
Regarding claim 5, Yeh et al. (figure 4 and para 0038-0039/0050) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (see figure 4); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 4); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (figure 4 and para 0038-0039/0050); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (figure 4 and para 0038-0039/0050)
6 Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Asanuma et al. (US 20140054973).
Regarding claim 1, Asanuma et al..(figures 11-12 and para 0080) discloses a first coil (1) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 11); and a second coil (2) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 11), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (see figure 11 and para 0080); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 11 and para 0080); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.( see figure 1 and para 0080)
Regarding claim 5, Asanuma et al..(figures 11-12 and para 0080) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (see figure 11); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 11); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 11), wherein: a distance between each turn of the first plurality of turns is the same and is equal to a distance between each turn of the second plurality of turns (figure 11 and para 0080); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (figure 11 and para 0080)
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.
5 Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonoyama et al. (US 2013/0249664) in view of MI et al. (US 20090085707).
Regarding claim 2, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.
MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of a/b to equal 1.3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught by Mi et al. to the inductive device of Tonoyama et al. so as to reduce parasitic capacitance and lowers AC resistance at high frequencies. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to reduce capacitive coupling between adjacent turns, thereby improving the self-resonant frequency of the inductors.
Regarding claim 3, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.
MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of 1.12*b)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns as taught by Mi et al. to the inductive device of Tonoyama et al. so as to minimizes high-frequency current crowding between adjacent turns while also reducing winding losses and prevents overheating. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to optimizes the coil's electromagnetic and thermal efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.
MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of a/b to equal 1.3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught by Mi et al. to the inductive device of Tonoyama et al. so as to reduce parasitic capacitance and lowers AC resistance at high frequencies. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to reduce capacitive coupling between adjacent turns, thereby improving the self-resonant frequency of the inductors.
Regarding claim 7, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a distance between the first layer and the second layer is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.
MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a distance between the first layer and the second layer is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of 1.12*b)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a distance between the first layer and the second layer is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns as taught by Mi et al. to the inductive device of Tonoyama et al. so as to minimizes high-frequency current crowding between adjacent turns while also reducing winding losses and prevents overheating. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to optimizes the coil's electromagnetic and thermal efficiency.
6 Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200168375) in view of Ueda et al. (US 20210329795).
Regarding claim 2, Park et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0090) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.
Ueda et al. (para 0041/0047/0051) discloses wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of a/b to equal 1.3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught by Ueda et al. to the inductive device of Park et al. so as to reduce parasitic capacitance and lowers AC resistance at high frequencies. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to reduce capacitive coupling between adjacent turns, thereby improving the self-resonant frequency of the inductors.
Regarding claim 3, Park et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0090) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.
Ueda et al. (para 0041/0047/0051) discloses wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of 1.12*b)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns as taught by Ueda et al. to the inductive device of Park et al.so as to minimizes high-frequency current crowding between adjacent turns while also reducing winding losses and prevents overheating. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to optimizes the coil's electromagnetic and thermal efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Park et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0090) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.
Ueda et al. (para 0041/0047/0051) discloses wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of a/b to equal 1.3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught by Ueda et al. to the inductive device of Park et al. so as to reduce parasitic capacitance and lowers AC resistance at high frequencies. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to reduce capacitive coupling between adjacent turns, thereby improving the self-resonant frequency of the inductors.
Regarding claim 7, Park et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0090) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does expressly disclose wherein a distance between the first layer and the second layer is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.
Ueda et al. (para 0041/0047/0051) discloses wherein a distance between the first layer and the second layer is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of 1.12*b)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design disclose wherein a distance between the first layer and the second layer is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns as taught by Ueda et al. to the inductive device of Park et al. so as to minimizes high-frequency current crowding between adjacent turns while also reducing winding losses and prevents overheating. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3 as taught, 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. Such as to optimizes the coil's electromagnetic and thermal efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights