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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in grounds of the new rejection.
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, wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Where in the specifications discusses these features in figure 3 of fig 3b wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “….wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material…” is vague and indefinite. Lines 3-4 of the applicants claimed invention discloses how a second magnetic core in contact with the interior portion and the exterior portion. Which suggest that the interior and exterior portions of the first magnetic core is magnetic core-3 and magnetic core-2. Also, Lines 6-7 of the applicants claimed invention discloses wherein the first magnetic core further comprises a third portion that extends across and is in contact with the interior portion and the exterior portion; which suggest that magnetic core-1 is now a part of the first core.
From the drawing selected which was figure 3 of fig 3b, the magnetic core-3 and magnetic core-2 of the first magnetic core appears to be made of the same material and magnetic core-1 which is now also apart of the first core appears to made of a different material. The examiner is unclear on how exterior portion (magnetic core-2), the third portion (magnetic core-1), and the second magnetic core (magnetic core-4) are made from a first magnetic material since the drawing figure 3 of fig 3b discloses wherein the third portion (magnetic core-1) and the second magnetic core (magnetic core -4) are made of the same material and exterior portion (magnetic core-2) and interior portion (magnetic core-3) is made of the same material.
Where in the specifications discusses these features in figure 3 of fig 3b wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material. Claims 11-12 are rejected under the same premise as claim 1.
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.
1. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timashov et al. (US 2013/0257575) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2018/0374637) and Winkler et al. (US 2015/0287512).
Regarding claim 1, Timashov et al. (figure 8 and para 0043-0071) discloses a first magnetic core (872) including an interior portion and an exterior portion (see figure 8); a second magnetic core (874) in contact with the interior portion and the exterior portion (see figure 8); a plurality of primary windings formed around the interior portion (see figure 8 and para 0066); wherein the first magnetic core further comprises a third portion that extends across and is in contact with the interior portion and the exterior portion(see figure 8); wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material (see para 0045), and the interior portion is made from a second magnetic material (see para 0018/0045).
Timashov et al. discloses a teaching wherein a secondary winding is formed around the interior portion (see figure 8 and para 0066) but, does not expressly disclose a plurality of secondary windings formed around the interior portion and wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material that has a lower magnetic permeability than the second magnetic material.
Cheng et al. (figure 6 and para 0060-0061) discloses a teaching a plurality of secondary windings (610/612) formed around the interior portion.
Winkler et al. (figure 4 and para 0020-0021/0042) discloses a teaching wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material that has a lower magnetic permeability than the second magnetic material.(see para 0020-0021 disclosing how the entire core is made of low permeability which makes up the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core except for the middle core leg which is made of a high permeability material).
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 wherein a plurality of secondary windings formed around the interior portion as taught by Cheng et al to the inductive device of Timashov et al. so as to allow for a high er inductance to be obtained.
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 wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material that has a lower magnetic permeability than the second magnetic material as taught by Winkler et al. to the inductive device of Timashov et al. so as to prevent core saturation and minimize eddy current losses.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng et al. (figure 6 and para 0060-0061) discloses wherein the plurality of primary windings and the plurality of secondary windings are enclosed by the first and second magnetic cores.
2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timashov et al. (US 2013/0257575) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2018/0374637) and Winkler et al. (US 2015/0287512) in further view of Chandrasekaran et al. (US 6,980,077).
Regarding claim 12, Timashov et al. (figure 8 and para 0043-0071) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein the first magnetic material comprises magnetic powder material and the second magnetic material comprises ferrite material.
Chandrasekaran et al. (Col 5, lines 40-65 and Col 5, lines 1-40) discloses a teaching wherein the first magnetic material comprises magnetic powder material and the second magnetic material comprises ferrite material.
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 wherein the first magnetic material comprises magnetic powder material and the second magnetic material comprises ferrite material as taught by Chandrasekaran et al. to the modified inductive device of Timashov et al. so as allow the inductive device to have improved power density, stability, and minimized EMI.
3. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2018/0343742) in view of Winkler et al. (US 2015/0287512).
Regarding claim 1, Timashov et al. (figure 4 and para 0055-0088) discloses a first magnetic core (2b) including an interior portion and an exterior portion (see figure 4); a second magnetic core (2a) in contact with the interior portion and the exterior portion (see figure 4); a plurality of primary windings formed around the interior portion (see figure 4/5a/5d); a plurality of secondary windings formed around the interior portion(see figure 4/5b/5c); wherein the first magnetic core further comprises a third portion that extends across and is in contact with the interior portion and the exterior portion (see figure 4); wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material (see figure 4 and para 0057), and the interior portion is made from a second magnetic material (see figure 4 and para 0057).
Ando et al. does not expressly disclose does not expressly disclose wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material that has a lower magnetic permeability than the second magnetic material.
Winkler et al. (figure 4 and para 0020-0021/0042) discloses a teaching wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material that has a lower magnetic permeability than the second magnetic material.(see para 0020-0021 disclosing how the entire core is made of low permeability which makes up the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core except for the middle core leg which is made of a high permeability material).
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 wherein the exterior portion, the third portion, and the second magnetic core are made from a first magnetic material that has a lower magnetic permeability than the second magnetic material as taught by Winkler et al. to the inductive device of Ando et al. so as to prevent core saturation and minimize eddy current losses.
Regarding claim 11, Ando et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the plurality of primary windings and the plurality of secondary windings are enclosed by the first and second magnetic cores.
4 Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2018/0343742) in view of Winkler et al. (US 2015/0287512) in further view of Chandrasekaran et al. (US 6,980,077).
Regarding claim 12, Timashov et al. (figure 8 and para 0043-0071) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein the first magnetic material comprises magnetic powder material and the second magnetic material comprises ferrite material.
Chandrasekaran et al. (Col 5, lines 40-65 and Col 5, lines 1-40) discloses a teaching wherein the first magnetic material comprises magnetic powder material and the second magnetic material comprises ferrite material.
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 wherein the first magnetic material comprises magnetic powder material and the second magnetic material comprises ferrite material as taught by Chandrasekaran et al. to the modified inductive device of Ando et al. so as allow the inductive device to have improved power density, stability, and minimized EMI.
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 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