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 .
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, discloses a magnetic component [figure 1], comprising: at least one magnetic core structure [figure 1, 2a, 2b] wherein at least one gap is formed between end surfaces of the at least one magnetic core [figure 1, para 42]; at least one electrical winding [8] surrounding at least a part of the at least one magnetic core [figure 1]; and a shielding device [10, para 52] for shielding fringing fields of the at least one gap, the shielding device comprising: a holding unit attached to at least one of the at least one magnetic core and the at least one
electrical winding in a periphery of the at least one gap [figure 1, adhesive 9]; and at least one shield member attached to the holding unit; wherein the at least one shield member is configured to shield gap-fringing fields in the periphery of the at least one gap [para 52].
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Waggoner et al. [EP2216793A2]. Regarding claim 1, Ritter et al. discloses magnetic component [170], comprising: at least one magnetic core [300], wherein at least one gap is formed between end surfaces of the at least one magnetic core [figure 5]; at least one electrical winding surrounding at least a part of the at least one magnetic core [420]; and a shielding device [410] for shielding fringing fields of the at least one gap, the shielding device comprising: a holding unit attached to at least one of the at least one magnetic core and the at least one electrical winding in a periphery of the at least one gap [figure 6, insulator 430]; and at least one shield member [410, figure 6] attached to the holding unit; wherein the at least one shield member is configured to shield gap-fringing fields in the periphery of the at least one gap [para 21].
Regarding claims 2-3, Ritter et al. discloses the magnetic component according to claim 1, wherein the holding unit comprises at least one side surface configured to at least partially surround the gap and to hold the at least one shield member [figure 7].
Regarding claim 4, Ritter et al. discloses the holding unit comprises: the receiving portion [450, 460, figure 7].
Regarding claims 7-9, Ritter et al. discloses an insulating frame-shaped portion [470] placed between the two opposing surfaces of the cores extending from a side surface of the insulator [430] filling the air gap [para 22].
Regarding claim 10, Ritter et al. discloses a gap [figure 6, 452] to separate two portions of the shield [para 21]. Regarding claim 13, Ritter et al. discloses the fringe shield surrounding the end surfaces of the core and thus overlapping in the radial direction [figures 6-7, para. 22].
Regarding claims 15-16, Ritter et al. discloses the member 430 being formed of an epoxy resin material [para. 22].
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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al.
Regarding claims 11-12, Ritter et al. disclose everything claimed except the wherein a shortest distance between the shield member and a closest edge of the respective gap is defined as L and a width of the respective gap is defined as D, and L > D, wherein a quotient L/D is
between and including a maximum and a minimum, wherein the maximum is selected from 5, 3, and 2, and the minimum is selected from 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, or the quotient L/D is one of the above and the shield member overlaps at least one of the end surfaces. The specific distances of the gaps and the overhang of the shielding members would been an obvious design consideration based on the core structure, fringing effects and sizing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (?), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al. in view of Jitaru [US 6967553]. Ritter et al. discloses everything claimed except the use of a ferrite material as at least one of the shield members. Jitaru discloses an inductor structure [figure 4c] having an EI core structure including shielding plate members [18] formed of ferrite material [column 4, line 64- column 5, line 16]. It would have been obvious that a portion of the shielding structure could have been ferrite, as suggested by Jitaru, in order to reduce losses in the winding structure and control fringe effects.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al. in view of Worthington et al. [WO2012001398].
Regarding claim 17, Ritter et al discloses everything claimed except wherein the at least one electrical winding does not surround the at least one gap. Worthington et al. discloses an EI magnetic core configuration [figure 3a] including a shielding plate mounted outside of the gap in the EI configuration. It would have been obvious, to use the design of Worthington et al. for the core, in order to simply the mounting of the core.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-30-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues that the Suzuki fails to disclose the shielding device to suppress fringing fields including a holding unit. Applicant states that the adhesive 9 with fix, or hold, the shield. As noted by applicant, the shielding member is used to protect the bobbin from the adhesive. Suzuki further states, however, that the protective cover 10 can be formed of other materials to provide shielding, see paragraph 52 which states “However, the material is not limited to the insulator. The protective cover 10 may be configured such that it has a shield effect using a metal, such as copper, which can function as a shield.”
Applicant further argues that the fringe shield is not held by the insulating material 430. Ritter states that “a fringe shield (410) sealed within an insulator (430),” thus it is held by the insulating material. Applicant argues that “holding unit” is not the same as that in claim 1 since the insulation is formed around the fringe shield. Examiner disagrees, the claim states that the fringe shield is “attached to the holding unit.” The claim is directed towards a final product and not a manufacturing method thereof.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LINCOLN D DONOVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1988. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-6:30.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842