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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4, 6, and 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, recites “polycarbonylalkylenoxy” The claim should instead read “polycarbonylalkyleneoxy”.
Claim 6, line 2, recites “Aluminum Hydroxide.” The claim should instead read “aluminum hydroxide.”
Claim 20, line 2, recites “0.8 W/mk”. The claim should instead read “0.8 W/m∙K”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 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.
Claim 20 recites “polyimide insulants having a thermal conductivity higher than 0.8 W/mk”, which causes confusion. If the thermal conductivity is high (for example, 100 W/mK), then the compound is not considered to be a good insulator anymore. Does the applicant intend to claim this range? The examiner invites Applicant to clarify.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A thermal conductive bobbin for a magnetic power unit, wherein the thermal conductive bobbin has a magnetic field closed around, generated with or without a core, and the thermal conductive bobbin is made of an injectable and polymerizable thermoplastic composition comprising:
an aluminium nanoparticles dispersion in mineral oil in an amount of between 25% and 55% by weight with respect to the total weight of the composition;
a plastic polymer in an amount of between 5% and 15% by weight with respect to the total weight of the composition;
silicon carbide microparticles between 20% and 45% by weight with respect to the total weight of the composition; and
additives up to 10% by weight with respect to the total weight of the composition,
so that the thermal conductive bobbin has a dielectric rigidity higher than 5kV/mm.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20080047015 as listed on IDS dated October 5, 2022) in view of Kambe (US 9000083 B2) and in view of Moon (WO 2019004846).
The examiner will refer to the English translation of Kwon et al. included in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose a bobbin formed from a thermoplastic resin comprising 10% to 95% by weight of a thermoplastic and 3-70 wt% of a filler such as silicon carbide and aluminum (claims 1-3 and 6), thereby reading on the plastic polymer as recited in the instant claims. Kwon et al. also disclose the composition is used to prevent electromagnetic interference (paragraph 1), thereby reading on the magnetic field of claim 1. Kwon et al. also teach the composition may further contains a flame retardant (claim 7, paragraph 5), which is considered to be optional (and therefore 0%) and thereby lying within the claimed range of up to 10 wt% of additives.
Kwon et al. is silent on an aluminum nanoparticles dispersion as recited in the instant claim.
Kambe teach a dispersion with a nanoparticle blend having an average primary particle size of about 2 nm to about 100 nm comprising aluminum nanoparticles (claim 1 and 2). Kambe offer the motivation that the dispersion can be used to facilitate further processing [col 39, line 5-37]. Kwon et al. also teach the composition is extrusion mixed and injection molded [paragraph 4]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the aluminum nanoparticle dispersion of Kambe with the composition of Kwon et al. with reasonable expectation that the processing would improve.
Kambe is silent on the aluminum nanoparticle dispersion has mineral oil as recited in the instant claim.
Moon teach an aluminum nanoparticle dispersion in mineral oil [0082]. Kambe teach suitable organic solvents include hydrocarbons [col 21, line 52-67], which mineral oil comprises. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use mineral oil as a solvent as taught by Moon since it is well known in the industry to be a component for aluminum nanoparticle dispersions.
Kwon et al. is silent on the dielectric rigidity of the thermal conductive bobbin.
However, the properties of the bobbin are dependent on the composition. Kwon et al., Kambe, and Novich et al. teach a substantially identical composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the dielectric rigidity to be expected.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon et al. teach the thermoplastic resin is polybutylene terephthalate (claim 5), thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon et al. disclose a flame retardant can be present in the composition [paragraph 5], thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Kambe teach the average particle size of the aluminum nanoparticles is about 2 nm to about 100 nm, thereby lying within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kambe.
Regarding claim 8, Kwon et al. teach the silicon carbide has an average particle size of 20 µm or less (paragraph 4), thereby overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kwon et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20080047015 as listed on IDS dated October 5, 2022) in view of Kambe (US 9000083 B2) and Moon (WO 2019004846) and in further view of Thetford (EP 2093254).
The thermally conductive bobbin of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Kwon et al. is silent on the dispersant as recited in the instant claim.
Thetford teach a dispersant having a structure seen in formula (2) shown below,
PNG
media_image1.png
180
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein X-*-*-X is formed from a polyethyleneimine and Q is the chain RR’N-T-O-*Y)x-T-NH-A- and R can be H or C.sub.1-30-optionally substituted hydrocarbyl and R' is R"C=O (an acyl group); R" is hydrogen, alkyl or an optionally substituted alkyl or aryl or an optionally substituted aryl; Y is C.sub.2-.sub.4-alkyleneoxy; T is C.sub.2-4-alkylene; A is the residue of a dibasic acid or anhydride thereof; x is from 2 to 90; q is from 2 to 2000, thereby reading on the polycarbonylalkyleneoxy of the instant claim(claim 1 and 4). Thetford offers the motivation that the dispersant may be added to a thermoplastic resin [0049-0058]. Kwon et al. is also concerned with a thermoplastic resin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dispersant of Thetford with the bobbin of Kwon et al. since both are related to thermoplastic resins.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20080047015 as listed on IDS dated October 5, 2022) in view of Kambe (US 9000083 B2) and Moon (WO 2019004846) and in further view of Koji et al. (US 5317067).
The thermally conductive bobbin of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claims 5 and 6. Kwon et al. is silent on the bobbin comprises the lubricant and flame retardant is recited in the instant claims.
Koji et al. teach a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a silicone oil lubricant and aluminum hydroxide flame retardant [col 3, line 15-34]. Kwon et al. is also concerned with a thermoplastic composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add silicone oil and aluminum hydroxide as taught by Koji et al. with the bobbin of Kwon et al. since they are well known additives for thermoplastic compositions.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al. (JP H07230922) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20080047015 as listed on IDS dated October 5, 2022), Kambe (US 9000083 B2), and Moon (WO 2019004846).
The examiner will refer to the English translation of Hagiwara et al. attached to this Office Action.
Regarding claim 9 and 13, Hagiwara et al. disclose a transformer comprising a winding wound around an iron core and a winding wherein the winding is wound around an insulating bobbin (claim 1 and claim 5), thereby reading on the thermal conductive bobbin and magnetic core of claims 9 and 13 and the transformer of claim 13.
Hagiwara et al. is silent on the thermal conductive bobbin being made from the composition as recited in the instant claims.
Kwon et al. disclose a bobbin formed from a thermoplastic resin comprising 10% to 95% by weight of a thermoplastic and 3-70 wt% of a filler such as silicon carbide and aluminum (claims 1-3 and 6), thereby reading on the plastic polymer as recited in the instant claims. Kwon et al. also disclose the composition is used to prevent electromagnetic interference (paragraph 1), thereby reading on the magnetic field of claim 1. Kwon et al. also teach the composition may further contains a flame retardant (claim 7, paragraph 5), which is considered to be optional (and therefore 0%) and thereby lying within the claimed range of up to 10 wt% of additives. Hagiwara et al. is also concerned about a bobbin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the composition of Kwon et al. with the inductive assembly and inductive unit of Hagiwara et al. since both are related to bobbins.
Kwon et al. is silent on an aluminum nanoparticles dispersion as recited in the instant claim.
Kambe teach a dispersion with a nanoparticle blend having an average primary particle size of about 2 nm to about 100 nm comprising aluminum nanoparticles (claim 1 and 2). Kambe offer the motivation that the dispersion can be used to facilitate further processing [col 39, line 5-37]. Kwon et al. also teach the composition is extrusion mixed and injection molded [paragraph 4]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the aluminum nanoparticle dispersion of Kambe with the combination of Hagiwara et al. in view of Kwon et al. with reasonable expectation that the processing would improve.
Kambe et al. is silent on the aluminum nanoparticle dispersion has mineral oil as recited in the instant claim.
Moon teach an aluminum nanoparticle dispersion in mineral oil [0082]. Kambe teach suitable organic solvents include hydrocarbons [col 21, line 52-67], which mineral oil comprises. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use mineral oil as a solvent as taught by Moon since it is well known in the industry to be a component for aluminum nanoparticle dispersions.
Kwon et al. is silent on the dielectric rigidity of the thermal conductive bobbin.
However, the properties of the bobbin are dependent on the composition. Kwon et al., Kambe, and Novich et al. teach a substantially identical composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the dielectric rigidity to be expected.
17. Regarding claim 10 and 14, Hagiwara et al. is silent on the plastic polymer as recited in the instant claim.
Kwon et al. teach the thermoplastic resin is polybutylene terephthalate (claim 5), thereby reading on the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the composition of Kwon et al. with the inductive assembly and inductive unit of Hagiwara et al. since both are related to bobbins and it is well known in the industry to form a bobbin using a thermoplastic resin.
Regarding claim 11 and 16, Hagiwara et al. is silent on the particle size of the aluminum nanoparticles and silicon carbide microparticles as recited in the instant claims.
Kwon et al. teach the silicon carbide has an average particle size of 20 µm or less (paragraph 4), thereby overlapping the claimed range and claim 11 and 16. Hagiwara et al. is also concerned about a bobbin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the composition of Kwon et al. with the inductive assembly and inductive unit of Hagiwara et al. since both are related to bobbins.
Regarding claim 15, Hagiwara et al. is silent on the particle size of the aluminum nanoparticles as recited in the instant claim.
Kambe teach a dispersion with a nanoparticle blend having an average primary particle size of about 2 nm to about 100 nm comprising aluminum nanoparticles (claim 1 and 2) as discussed in the rejection for claim 9 and 13 above.
Regarding claim 18, Hagiwara et al. is silent on the inductive assembly is configured to operate under a switching frequency as recited in the instant claim.
However, Hagaiwara et al. in view of Kwon et al., Kambe, and Novich et al. teach a substantially identical inductive assembly. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the configuration to be inherent.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al. (JP H07230922) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20080047015 as listed on IDS dated October 5, 2022), Kambe (US 9000083 B2), and Moon (WO 2019004846) and in further view of Koji et al. (US 5317067).
The inductive unit of claim 9 and the inductive assembly of claim 13 are incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 12 and 17, Hagiwara et al. is silent on the additives as recited in the instant claims.
Koji et al. teach a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a silicone oil lubricant and aluminum hydroxide flame retardant [col 3, line 15-34]. Kwon et al. is also concerned with a thermoplastic composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add silicone oil and aluminum hydroxide as taught by Koji et al. with the inductive unit and assembly of Hagiwara et al. in view of Kwon et al., Kambe, and Moon since they are well known additives for thermoplastic compositions.
Claim 19 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al. (JP H07230922) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20080047015 as listed on IDS dated October 5, 2022), Kambe (US 9000083 B2), and Moon (WO 2019004846) and in further view Oshiro (JP H09210610).
The inductive assembly of claim 13 is incorporated by reference.
Hagiwara et al. is silent on the inductive units are encased in a one-piece thermally conductive case made of aluminum as recited in the instant claim.
Oshiro teach a power transformer comprising a bobbin and a core surrounded in a case (claim 1). Oshiro further teach the case is made of aluminum [0017]. Hagiwara et al. is also concerned about a power transformer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an aluminum case as taught by Oshiro with the inductive assembly of Hagiwara et al. since both are related to power transformers.
Regarding claim 20, Hagiwara et al. disclose an interlayer insulator that comprises a polyimide filme [0011].
Hagiwara et al. is silent on the thermal conductivity of the polyimide as recited in the instant claim.
However, thermal conductivity is dependent on the structure of the polymer. Hagiwara et al. teach a substantially identical polymer as the claim. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the thermal conductivity to be expected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763