FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 17/966,840, entitled INTEGRATED CHOKE ASSEMBLY.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are rejected.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are withdrawn.
I. APPLICATION STATUS
Applicant filed an amendment on September 18, 2025 (hereinafter the “2025 Amendment”) in response to the non-final Office action mailed July 23, 2025 (hereinafter the “2025 NF Action”). In the 2025 Amendment, claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13, 16, 18 were amended, claims 4, 5, 14, 15 were withdrawn and claims 8, 17, 19 and 20 were unchanged. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are pending and examined herein and claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are withdrawn.
Examiner finds Applicant has made substantial amendments to the claims which require further search and consideration and further necessitate new grounds of rejection as provided below. Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
II. OBJECT TO CLAIM AMENDMENTS
The amendments to claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are objected to because while Applicant has indicated them as “Withdrawn,” Applicant has deleted the entirety of the text. Thus, Examiner finds these claims have no scope and thus are effectively cancelled. Appropriate claim identifiers indicating such cancelling is thus required, i.e., “Cancelled.”
III. PRIORITY
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim that the present application claims priority to Taiwan Application TW111210052, filed September 15, 1022.
IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner finds that he is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiner further finds that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner concludes that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiner’s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
choke
Examiner finds that each of the claim recites a “first choke” and a “second choke.” After reviewing the specification, Examiner find such chokes are shown in the drawings, i.e., FIG. 3, reprinted below an annular core having a coil wrapped
PNG
media_image1.png
334
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
therearound. For example, FIG. 3 shows the first choke 102 comprises a core 112 and a coil 114/116 therearound and the second choke 104 similarly comprises a core 130 and a coil 130. Thus, based on the disclosure in the specification, Examiners find a reasonable interpretation of a choke is an annular core with a coil wrapped around the core.
high/low/different frequency suppression
The claims have been amended to recite that the first and second choke is either have different frequency EMI suppression or have different high or lower frequency EMI suppression. As shown above in FIG. 3, the first choke 102 and the second choke 104 are shown as annular cores with coils wrapped around the core. Furthermore, as stated in ¶0027 of the specification, the first choke 102 can used for suppression or high or low frequency EMI and the similarly the second choke 104 can be used can used for suppression or high or low frequency EMI. Thus, based on the specification, the size of the core or number of turns of the coil are immaterial to the frequency suppression. However, the specification further states “[t]he material of the magnetic core 112 includes manganese and zinc to suppress low-frequency electromagnetic interference.” See specification ¶0031. And further the specification states “[t]he material of the magnetic core 130 includes nickel and zinc to suppress high-frequency electromagnetic interference.” See specification ¶0035. Thus, Examiners find that different frequency suppression, i.e., high or low, as contemplated by the specification is based on the core material, using nickel and zinc for high frequency suppression or using manganese and zinc for low frequency suppression, and not on the size of the core or the number of windings thereon. The claims will be interpreted in this manner.
V. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
Obviousness Rejections Applying Arai and Rohde
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over World Patent Application Publication No. 2012/029890 to to Toshio Arai et al. (hereinafter “Arai”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,267,404 to Carl Rohde (hereinafter “Rohde”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Arai teaches
An integrated choke assembly, comprising:
a first frequency EMI suppression choke;
and a second frequency EMI suppression choke;
wherein said first frequency is different from said second frequency;
wherein said first frequency EMI suppression choke includes a first magnetic core and a first winding set wound on said first magnetic core, and said second frequency EMI suppression choke includes a second magnetic core and a second winding set wound on said second magnetic core.
See Arai FIG. 8, reprinted below.
PNG
media_image2.png
222
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Arai FIG. 8
See also Arai, at least the Abstract wherein “A first choke coil (CH1-1) formed by winding an electric wire around a Mn-Zn based toroidal core which has a superior attenuation property at a low frequency and a second choke coil (CH1-2) formed by winding an electric wire around a Ni-Zn based toroidal core which has a superior attenuation property at a high frequency, are series-connected between a first input terminal (IN1) and a first output terminal (OUT1).” Thus, Arai discloses two chokes in an integrated choke assembly which suppress different frequencies.
However, Arai does not disclose the manner to which the chokes are stacked or arranged within the noise filter 10, i.e., integrated choke assembly.
Nevertheless, Rohde teaches a support structure for stacking toroidal winding arrangements, which have windings wrapped around an annular core, comprising:
See Rohde FIGS. 1 and 4, reprinted below.
PNG
media_image3.png
396
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
398
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rohde FIG. 1 Rohde FIG. 4
an insulating base, wherein a first protruding portion is on an upper surface of said insulating base and a second protruding portion is on a lower surface of said insulating base;
See base item 42, which has a first protruding portion 8 on an upper side surface and a second protruding portion 86 on a lower surface thereof. As shown in FIG. 4, the base 42 is provided between choke/toroidal windings. In such an arrangement, the first protruding portion 88 faces up and the second protruding portion facing down. Further see Rohde claim 1 and col. 2, lines 26-29 wherein “[a] terminal housing and coil supporting device in accordance with the invention is in the form of a one-piece molding of thermoplastic material, such as a glass filled nylon…”
a first choke configured on said first protruding portion so that said first choke is configured on said upper surface of said insulating base; and
As shown in FIG. 4, the upper choke/toroidal winding 2 is provided on the upper surface of the base 42 and the protruding portion 88 of the base is inserted into the upper choke/toroidal winging 2.
and a second choke configured on said second protruding portion so that said second choke is configured on said lower surface of said insulating base substrate.
As shown in FIG. 4, the lower choke/toroidal winding 2 is provided on the lower surface of the base 42 and the protruding portion 86 of the base is inserted into the lower choke/toroidal winging 2.
wherein said insulating base is employed to isolate said first frequency EMI suppression choke and said second frequency EMI suppression choke
Further see Rohde claim 1 and col. 2, lines 26-29 wherein “[a] terminal housing and coil supporting device in accordance with the invention is in the form of a one-piece molding of thermoplastic material, such as a glass filled nylon…” Thus, the insulating base of Rohde having the same material and located between the chokes as contemplated in the specification of the present application would have the same properties thereof, i.e., isolation.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the stacking structures of Rohde for the chokes of Arai. Such combination would otherwise maintain the operation and connection of Arai, but would merely add a means for stacking such chokes. One having ordinary skill in the art would make such a combination because as noted in Rohde, its stacking structure shown in FIG. 4 provides the coils on “a common axes and the stack will be stabilized by virtue of the fact that the housings and coil locating posts on adjacent coils are latched to each other.” See Rohde col. 3, lines 62-66. Furthermore, Examiner finds that because the combination would not alter the operation of Arai, but merely provide a means for arranging the chokes in a housing, the combination is predictable.
Furthermore, and alternatively, Examiners find it would have been obvious to modify the cores of the chokes shown in FIG. 4 of Rhode to use the core materials as taught by Arai, such that one choke suppresses high frequency EMI and the other choke suppresses low frequency EMI. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so that “a stable and large attenuation amount can be obtained in a wideband frequency range from a low frequency to a high frequency.” See Arai Abstract. Furthermore, Examiners find the combination is predictable because the combination would not alter the arrangement shown in FIG. 4, of Rohde, but merely change the materials for the cores which provides a wider range of frequency suppression.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Arai and Rohde teach the features of claim 1 as provided above and further
wherein the first frequency is lower (or higher) than said second frequency.
Examiners find that the exact combination proposed above teaches the first choke suppressing lower frequencies than the second choke based on the materials for the cores of the chokes. However, Examiners find it would have equally been obvious to simply switch the core materials for the first and second chokes such that the first choke suppresses higher frequency EMI than the second choke for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Arai and Rohde teaches the assembly of claims 1 and 11 as taught above, and further wherein
said insulating base includes two pairs of pins separated from each other.
Note combination proposed for claims 1 and 11 above. Further see Rohde FIG. 4, wherein the base 42 has pin terminals 54.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of Arai and Rohde teaches the assembly of claim 1 as taught above, and further wherein
said insulating base is made of an insulating material and said insulating material includes bakelite or plastic.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. Further see Rohde claim 1 and col. 2, lines 26-29 wherein “[a] terminal housing and coil supporting device in accordance with the invention is in the form of a one-piece molding of thermoplastic material, such as a glass filled nylon…”
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Arai and Rohde teaches the assembly of claims 1 and 11 as taught above, and further wherein
said insulating base includes a main structure to allow said first frequency EMI suppression choke disposed on said upper surface and said second frequence EMI suppression choke disposed on said lower surface.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. Further see Rohde FIG. 4 wherein the base 42 allows one choke/toroid coil to be located on an upper surface and one choke/toroid coil to be located on the lower surface thereof.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Arai and Rohde teaches the assembly of claim 9 as taught above, and further wherein
said insulating base includes two pairs of pins separated from each other.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. Further see Rohde FIG. 4 wherein the base 42 has four pairs of terminals/pins 54 for four wires to be attached.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Arai and Rohde teaches the assembly of claim 11 as taught above, and further wherein
said first magnetic core is an annular first magnetic core and said second magnetic core is an annular second magnetic core.
Note combination proposed for claim 11 above. See also Arai FIG. 8 above and at least the Abstract wherein “A first choke coil (CH1-1) formed by winding an electric wire around a Mn-Zn based toroidal core which has a superior attenuation property at a low frequency and a second choke coil (CH1-2) formed by winding an electric wire around a Ni-Zn based toroidal core which has a superior attenuation property at a high frequency, are series-connected between a first input terminal (IN1) and a first output terminal (OUT1).”
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the combination of Arai and Rohde teaches the assembly of claim 11 as taught above, and further wherein
a coil interval of said first winding set wound on said first magnetic core are the same and a coil interval of said second winding set wound on said second magnetic core are the same.
Note combination proposed for claim 11 above. Further see Arai FIG. 8 wherein the coils are shown having even winding intervals. Furthermore, Examiners find it is either well known or would have been obvious to wind coils around annular cores with even intervals to avoid magnetic field leakage.
VI. EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments in the 2025 Amendment. However, such arguments are generally moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
VII. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are rejected.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are withdrawn.
Applicant's substantial amendments to the claims in the 2025 Amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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 KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992