DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 is amended
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 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tatsuo (JP2016076597A ).
Regarding Claim 1:
Tatsuo teaches that a reactor (1a) comprising
an assembly in which a coil (2, Fig. 2; para 0021-0036) a magnetic core (3), and a holding member (51, Fig. 3) are combined,
wherein the coil includes a winding portion (2a, 2b) formed by winding a wire,
the magnetic core includes an inner core portion (31) disposed inside the
winding portion and an outer core portion (32) disposed outside the winding portion,
the holding member is disposed between an end surface of the winding
portion and the outer core portion (construed from Fig. 4),
the holding member includes:
an outer surface (front side of 51 in Fig. 4) facing a side on which the outer core
portion is disposed;
a recessed core (not labeled; construed from Fig. 5) accommodating portion
into which a part of the outer core portion is fitted; and
a first holding portion (left side 51 in Fig. 3) facing a first outer circumferential surface of the outer core portion,
the first holding portion includes:
a plate-shaped piece (53, Fig. 2) extending from the outer surface to the first outer circumferential surface; and
a pressing portion (53p, Drawing: 1) that presses the first outer
circumferential surface, the pressing portion being shorter (i.e. L2 < L1; see Drawing: 1; see Note below) in length (L2; Drawing: 1) than the plate-shaped piece (L1; Drawing: 1)
the plate-shaped piece has a first surface flush with an inner wall surface
of the core accommodating portion (construed form Fig. 5), and
the pressing portion protrudes toward the first outer circumferential surface relative to the first surface (construed form Fig. 4).
As of limitation “a pressing portion that presses the first outer circumferential surface” it is seen that Tatsuo certainly teaches substantially identical structure as shown in Drawing: 1, such as magnetic core, holding portion, pressing portion in same filed of endeavor. As per MPEP § 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a pressing portion that presses the first outer circumferential surface.
(Note: Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2125.I for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures”).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing:1, an annotated version of Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, Tatsuo teaches that wherein the pressing portion is a protrusion (see Fig. 3) provided on the first surface, and the protrusion extends in a depth direction of the core accommodating portion (construed from Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3:
As applied to claim 2, Tatsuo teaches that wherein a protrusion amount of the protrusion from the first surface increases toward a bottom surface of the core accommodating portion (construed from Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8:
As applied to claim 1, Tatsuo teaches that wherein the holding member includes a through hole (51h, Fig. 3) penetrating the inner core portion, and in a front view (i.e. left view of 51 in Fig. 3) of the holding member as seen from the outer surface side, the pressing portion is provided at a position overlapping the through hole (construed from Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9:
As applied to claim 1, Tatsuo teaches that wherein the holding member includes a second holding portion (512, Fig. 5) extending from the outer surface in an axial direction (i.e. horizontal direction in Fig. 5) of the winding portion, and the second holding portion is provided at a position facing the first holding portion with the core accommodating portion interposed therebetween (construed from Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10:
As applied to claim 1, Tatsuo teaches that an outer mold portion(6A, 6B; Fig. 1; see abstract) that covers at least a part of an outer circumference of the assembly (construed from Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11:
As applied to claim 1, Tatsuo teaches that a converter (see para 0071; i.e. DC-DC converter) comprising the reactor.
Regarding Claim 12:
As applied to claim 11, Tatsuo teaches that power conversion device comprising the converter see para, 0001 and 0071; i.e. DC-DC converter)
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Tatsuo
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 2, Tatsuo teaches the protrusion except wherein a cross-sectional shape orthogonal to an extending direction of the protrusion is a tapered shape that narrows in a protruding direction of the protrusion.
It is noted that In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). (See MPEP 2144.04). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0114, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
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 wherein a cross-sectional shape orthogonal to an extending direction of the protrusion is a tapered shape that narrows in a protruding direction of the protrusion to meet design requirements for certain applications.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuo in view of Nagasaki (US20130149879A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 1, Tatsuo teaches the pressing portion except the pressing portion is a cantilever spring.
However, Nagasaki taught in claim 1 that a cantilever spring section which extends toward the bottom surface of the board while obliquely separating from the side surface,
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 pressing portion is a cantilever spring to provides a connector in which a secure contact state may be obtained through a simple process (see para 0007).
Regarding Claim 6:
As applied to claim 5, the modified Tatsuo teaches that wherein the cantilever spring is provided on a side of the plate-shaped piece (see Nagasaki’s para 0041 or claim 1).
Regarding Claim 7:
As applied to claim 5, the modified Tatsuo teaches that the base end of the cantilever spring is connected to the inner wall surface of the core accommodating portion (see Nagasaki’s para 0041 or claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference, and/or newly found prior art reference(s).
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues, at least in part, “the pressing portion (53p) disclosed in Tatsuo are configured to
facilitate positioning and create resin flow paths while the outer core is sandwiched by flat holding portions and aid handling prior to overmolding. There is no teaching or suggestion that the pressing portions (53p) are configured to provide the pressing function of the claimed pressing portions the pressing portions (53p) are configured to provide resin flow paths, the length of the pressing portions is equal to a length of the plate-shaped piece of the holding portion (53) itself. However, the pressing portions (51) of the present invention cannot have a similar length as the plate-shaped piece (50) because the claimed pressing portion (51) must both provide a pressing function as well as allow the plate-shaped piece (50) to elastically bend, as described in at least Paragraph [0112]” are not found persuasive because of the following reasons:
First, the functional limitation “a pressing portion that presses the first outer circumferential surface” it is seen that Tatsuo certainly teaches substantially identical structure as shown in Drawing: 1, such as magnetic core, holding portion, pressing portion in same filed of endeavor. As per MPEP § 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a pressing portion that presses the first outer circumferential surface.
Second, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed pressing portion (51) must both provide a pressing function as well as allow the plate-shaped piece (50) to elastically bend) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kazi Hossain whose telephone number is 571-272-8182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (EST).
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 https:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached on 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.
/KAZI HOSSAIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837