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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 (figures 1-11, claims 1-14 and 18-19) in the reply filed on 02/09/26 is acknowledged.
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, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takiguchi et al. (JP 2014157916)(English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses a core including a linear segment (see figure 9); a helical frame (see figures 1-8/10 disclosing wherein a bobbin has a helical frame) coaxial with the linear segment of the core (see figure 9) and having first and second major surfaces on opposite sides of the helical frame (see drawing below) and each oriented generally normal to a surface of the linear segment (see figures 9-10); and at least one helical coil (12) disposed in relation to one of the first and second major surfaces of the helical frame so as to conforming to at least one of the first and second major surfaces (see figures 1-8 and 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the at least one helical coil comprises a plurality of concentric helical coils disposed parallel to one of the first and second major surfaces.
Regarding claim 5, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the at least one helical coil comprises first and second helical coils conforming to respective ones of the first and second major surfaces.
Regarding claim 7, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the second helical coil comprises a plurality of concentric helical coils arrayed parallel to the second major surface of the helical frame.
Regarding claim 10, Takiguchi et al. (figure 9and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the segment of the core is linear.
Regarding claim 18, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses a core comprising a linear segment (see figure 9); a helical frame (see figures 1-8/10 disclosing wherein a bobbin has a helical frame) coaxial with the linear segment (see figure 9) and having first and second major surfaces on opposite sides of the helical frame and each normal to the linear segment (see drawing below); a first helical coil (12/12a) conforming to the first major surface; and a second helical coil (11/11a) conforming to the second major surface. (see drawing below)
PNG
media_image2.png
433
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
2. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. (JP 2014157916)(English translation) in view of Williamson (US 4833437).
Regarding claim 2, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the at least one helical coil (12) comprises a helical conductor having a major surface disposed parallel to one of the first and second major surfaces but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Williamson (figure 3 and claim 1) discloses a teaching wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Williamson to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have superior space efficiency, flexibility, high-density connectivity and improved heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 4, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses herein the concentric helical coils comprise concentric conductors having major surfaces arrayed in a plane normal to the one of the first and second major surfaces but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Williamson (figure 3 and claim 1) discloses a teaching wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Williamson to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have superior space efficiency, flexibility, high-density connectivity and improved heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 6, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the first helical coil comprises a helical conductor having a major surface disposed parallel to the first major surface of the helical frame but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Williamson (figure 3 and claim 1) discloses a teaching wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Williamson to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have superior space efficiency, flexibility, high-density connectivity and improved heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 8, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses herein the concentric helical coils comprise concentric conductors having major surfaces disposed normal to the second major surface of the helical frame but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Williamson (figure 3 and claim 1) discloses a teaching wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Williamson to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have superior space efficiency, flexibility, high-density connectivity and improved heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 19, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the first helical coil comprises a helical conductor having a major surface disposed parallel to the first major surface and wherein the second helical coil comprises a plurality of concentric coils arrayed parallel to the second major surface but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Williamson (figure 3 and claim 1) discloses a teaching wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Williamson to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have superior space efficiency, flexibility, high-density connectivity and improved heat dissipation.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. (JP 2014157916)(English translation) in view of Hoppe et al. (US 4956626).
Regarding claim 11, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses a core comprising a linear segment (see figure 9); a helical frame (see figures 1-8/10 disclosing wherein a bobbin has a helical frame) coaxial with the linear segment and having first and second major surfaces on opposite sides of the helical frame (see drawing below) and each normal to a surface of the linear segment of the core (see figure 9); and first (12/12a) and second helical (11/11a) coils conforming to respective ones of the first and second major surfaces of the helical frame.
PNG
media_image2.png
433
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takiguchi et al. does not expressly disclose wherein a teaching wherein the core is a toroidal core.
Hoppe et al. (figures 1-2/4) discloses a teaching wherein the core (16/17) is a toroidal core.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Hoppe et al. to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have offer superior magnetic efficiency, lower electromagnetic interference (EMI), and a more compact design.
4. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. (JP 2014157916)(English translation) in view of Hoppe et al. (US 4956626) in further view of Williamson (US 4833437).
Regarding claim 12, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses a wherein the first helical coil comprises a helical conductor having a major surface disposed parallel to the first major surface of the helical frame and wherein the second helical coil comprises a plurality of concentric helical coils arrayed parallel to the second major surface of the helical frame but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Williamson (figure 3 and claim 1) discloses a teaching wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Williamson to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have superior space efficiency, flexibility, high-density connectivity and improved heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 13, Takiguchi et al. (figures 1-10 and pages 3-4) discloses wherein the concentric helical coils comprise concentric conductors having major surfaces disposed normal to the second major surface of the helical frame but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Williamson (figure 3 and claim 1) discloses a teaching wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obviosu to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant invention to design wherein the conductor is a ribbon conductor as taught by Williamson to the inductive device of Takiguchi et al. so as to allow the inductive device to have superior space efficiency, flexibility, high-density connectivity and improved heat dissipation.
5. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. (JP 2014157916)(English translation).
Regarding claim 9, designing wherein the helical frame comprises a plurality of interconnected modular segments would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use. Such as to allow for easy disassembly and reuse while also having the capability to easily replace pieces if needed.
Regarding claim 14, designing wherein the helical frame comprises a plurality of interconnected modular segments would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use. Such as to allow for easy disassembly and reuse while also having the capability to easily replace pieces if needed.
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