Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/866,583

MAGNETIC CORE STRUCTURE AND ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 18, 2022
Examiner
LIAN, MANG TIN BIK
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shanghai Bright Power Semiconductor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
921 granted / 1312 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1394
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1312 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 1-9 and 11-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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)(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. Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2004/0178877 A1) With respect to claim 1, Lin teaches a magnetic core structure (Figs. 3 and 4, or 5), comprising: a first magnetic core 1 comprising a main portion (yoke of core 1) and two side pillars (legs of core 1) fixedly connected to the main portion; convex structures 1a and or 1b (annotated Fig. 3) are set on end surfaces (lower end faces) of the two side pillars away from the main portion, respectively; and a second magnetic core 2; wherein the convex structures abut against a surface (upper end face) of the second magnetic core after the first magnetic core and the second magnetic core are assembled together, so as to form a gap 7 and or 8 between the end surfaces of the two side pillars away from the main portion and the surface of the second magnetic core; and wherein the gap constitutes an air gap of the magnetic core structure (paras. [0025] or [0028]). PNG media_image1.png 741 429 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 2, Lin teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the main portion of the first magnetic core, the two side pillars of the first magnetic core, and the convex structures of the first magnetic core are integrally formed (paras. [0025] or [0028]). With respect to claim 3, Lin teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least a part of a cross-sectional area of each convex structure is less than a cross-sectional area of each side pillar (paras. [0025] or [0028]). With respect to claim 8, Lin teaches an electromagnetic coupling device (“transformer”), comprising the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 1 (para. [0021]). With respect to claim 9, Lin teaches the electromagnetic coupling device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the electromagnetic coupling device is a transformer (para. [0021]). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shelby et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,602,236). With respect to claim 4, Lin teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 3. Lin does not expressly teach the second magnetic core has a concave portion located on the surface of the second magnetic core corresponding to each convex structure, and a part of each convex structure is accommodated in a corresponding concave portion after the first magnetic core and the second magnetic core are assembled together; wherein a height of each convex structure is greater than a depth of the corresponding concave portion. Shelby et al., hereinafter referred to as “Shelby,” teaches a magnetic core structure (FIG. 3), wherein the second magnetic core 52 has a concave portion 60 located on the surface (upper surface) of the second magnetic core corresponding to each convex structure 48, and a part of each convex structure is accommodated in a corresponding concave portion after the first magnetic core 42 and the second magnetic core are assembled together; wherein a height 72 of each convex structure is greater than a depth 74 of the corresponding concave portion (col. 4, lines 13-22 and 40-44). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the concave and convex portions as taught by Shelby to the magnetic core structure of Lin to improve mechanical stability of the magnetic cores. Claims 5-7, 11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Iizuka et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2018//0301854 A1). With respect to claim 5, Lin teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 1. Lin does not expressly teach each convex structure comprises a plurality of convex portions, and a slit is formed between adjacent two convex portions PNG media_image2.png 7 7 media_image2.png Greyscale and the side pillars abut against the surface of the second magnetic core through at least one of the plurality of convex portions. Iizuka et al., hereinafter referred to as “Iizuka,” teaches a magnetic core structure 30C (FIGs. 7 or 8 and 9), each convex structure 44b comprises a plurality of convex portions, and a slit (space between convex structures, FIG.8 and or FIG. 4) is formed between adjacent two convex portions; and the side pillars 44a abut against the surface (surface of concave portion 43a) of the second magnetic core 41 through at least one of the plurality of convex portions (para. [0063]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the convex portions and slit as taught by Iizuka to the magnetic core structure of Lin to provide excellent assembly workability (para. [0005]). With respect to claim 6, Lin in view of Iizuka teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 5, wherein the second magnetic core has a plurality of concave portions 43a located on the surface of the second magnetic core, and each convex portion is accommodated in a corresponding concave portion respectively after the first magnetic core and the second magnetic core are assembled together; wherein a height of each convex portion is greater than a depth of the corresponding concave portion (Iizuka, para. [0063]). With respect to claim 7, Lin teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 1. Lin does not expressly teach glue is provided in the gap for fixing the two side pillars and the second magnetic core. Iizuka teaches a magnetic core structure 30C (FIGs. 7, or 8 and 9), wherein glue 60 is provided in the gap (gap filled by adhesive member 60) for fixing the two side pillars 44a and 44b (annotated FIG. 8) and the second magnetic core 41 (para. [0028]). PNG media_image3.png 506 403 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the glue as taught by Iizuka to the magnetic core structure of Lin to improve mechanical stability of the magnetic cores. With respect to claim 11, Lin in view Iizuka of teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 6, wherein the number of the plurality of concave portions is not equal to the number of the plurality of convex portions (Iizuka, para. [0063]). With respect to claim 14, Lin in view Iizuka teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 6, wherein the plurality of convex portions are arranged along a direction of a line connecting geometric centers of two end surfaces of two side pillars away from the main portion (Iizuka, (para. [0059]). With respect to claim 16, Lin teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 1. Lin does not expressly teach each convex structure is disposed at a geometric center of the end surface of each side pillar away from the main portion. Iizuka teaches a magnetic core structure (FIG. 7) wherein each convex structure 44b is disposed at a geometric center of the end surface (upper surface) of each side pillar away from the main portion (yoke) (para. [0060]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the convex structure as taught by Iizuka to the magnetic core structure of Lin to improve mechanical stability of the magnetic cores. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view Iizuka, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Shelby. With respect to claim 12, Lin in view Iizuka teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 11, wherein a part (part inside concave portion) of the plurality of convex portions are embedded in the plurality of concave portions (Iizuka, para. [0063]). Lin in view Iizuka does not expressly teach another part of the plurality of convex portions have no corresponding concave portions. Shelby teaches a magnetic core structure (FIG. 3), wherein a part (part inside concave 60) of the plurality of convex portions 48 are embedded in the plurality of concave portions, and another part (part adjacent to gap 64) of the plurality of convex portions have no corresponding concave portions (col. 4, lines 13-22 and 40-44). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the concave and convex portions as taught by Shelby to the magnetic core structure of Lin in view Iizuka to improve mechanical stability of the magnetic cores. With respect to claim 13, Lin in view Iizuka teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 11, and the number of the plurality of concave portions is greater than the number of the plurality of convex portions (Iizuka, para. [0063]). Lin in view Iizuka does not expressly teach a part of the plurality of concave portions has no corresponding convex portions. Shelby teaches a magnetic core structure (FIG. 3), wherein a part (part adjacent to gap 64) of the plurality of concave portions 60 has no corresponding convex portions 48 (col. 4, lines 13-22 and 40-44). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the concave and convex portions as taught by Shelby to the magnetic core structure of Lin in view Iizuka to improve mechanical stability of the magnetic cores while providing the required magnetic gap for magnetic saturation. Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view Iizuka, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hosozawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,816,894). With respect to claim 15, Lin teaches the magnetic core structure as claimed in claim 1. Lin does not expressly teach a total height of the air gap is equal to a height of each convex structure, and the surface of the second magnetic core is a flat surface. Hosozawa et al., hereinafter referred to as “Hosozawa,” teaches a magnetic core structure 40 (FIG. 4), wherein a total height (height of the magnetic gap G) of the air gap G is equal to a height of each convex structure (core leg portion of gap G) , and the surface of the second magnetic core 6 is a flat surface (col. 5, lines 12-15, 21-25). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the convex height as taught by Hosozawa to the magnetic core structure of Lin to provide the required magnetic saturation characteristics to meet design requirements. 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 MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700. 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 S. 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. /MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603211
COIL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597557
Dry High Voltage Instrument Transformer
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597554
ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597556
TRANSFORMER DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586715
Coil Component
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1312 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month