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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in United Kingdom on 12/01/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB2117336.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not explicitly disclose “an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders” nor having “a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders” being combined together.
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.
Claims 12 and 19 are 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 12 recites “an outer side of the conductive winding” is indefinite and unclear since claim 1 already recited “an outer side of the conductive winding”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation in claim 12 is the same or different as claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “an inner side of the conductive winding” is indefinite and unclear since claim 1 already recited “an inner side of the conductive winding”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation in claim 12 is the same or different as claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “winding strips of the conductive winding” is indefinite and unclear since the term “winding strips” is not introduced in claim 1.
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, 4, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0148048] in view of Schutten et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0048168].
Regarding Claim 1, Kittila et al. shows a filter inductor (Figs. 1-2, choke coil is a type of filter) for a power generation converter (choke coil as shown in Figs. 1-2 can be for a power generation converter based on intended use, Paragraph [0006]); the filter inductor comprising a toroidal core (2) and a conductive winding (6) having a first connector (611) and a second connector (612) positioned at each end of the winding (see Figs. 1-2), wherein: the conductive winding comprises at least first (601-608) and second (62) winding segments which are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around the toroidal core that extends from the first connector to the second connector (elements 601-608 and 62 are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around element 2 that extends from element 611 to element 612, see Figs. 1-2); and an inner side (inner side of element 62 or 651) of the conductive winding (6) that is positioned inside the toroidal core (2) extends parallel to an axis (4) of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-2, inner side of element 62 or 651 is positioned inside element 2 extends parallel to an axis 4 of element 2, Paragraph [0021]), and an outer side (688) of the conductive winding (6) that is positioned outside the toroidal core (2) is formed at an angle with respect to the axis (4) of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-2, element 688 is positioned outside of element 2 is formed at an angle with respect to the axis 4 of element 2, Paragraph [0036]).
In addition, Schutten et al. shows a filter inductor for a power generation convertor (Paragraph [0001]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a filter inductor for a power generation convertor as taught by Schutten et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. to achieve desirable operating electrical characteristics with high current carrying capability (Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kittila et al. shows the conductive winding is made of aluminum or copper (Paragraph [0017]).
Schutten et al. shows the conductive winding is made of aluminum or copper (Paragraphs [0009]-[0016], claim 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Kittila et al. shows the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (top portions of elements 611, 612 can be used as stabilising pads).
Regarding Claim 12, Kittila et al. shows an outer side (688 or 652) of the conductive winding has a greater width than an inner side (651, 62) of the conductive winding closer to a center of the toroidal core (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krokoszinski et al. [DE 4221769].
Regarding Claim 2, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied but is silent regarding the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors.
Krokoszinski et al. shows an inductive component (Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7) teaching and suggesting filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (4, Paragraph [0020], material of aluminum nitride and aluminum oxide can be used as a cold plate) through the first and second connectors (31, 36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors as taught by Krokoszinski et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to improve heat dissipation to prevent overheating.
Regarding Claim 3, Krokoszinski et al. shows electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are provided on the cold plate (4) and wherein the electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are electrically coupled to at least the first and second connectors of the inductor (see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7, elements 421, 425 electrically coupled to elements 31, 36 or elements 451, 452, 453, 454 electrically coupled to respective elements 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Krokoszinski et al. shows the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (elements 421, 425, 451, 452, 453, 454 can be used as stabilising pads).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have stabilising pads as taught by Krokoszinski et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate electrical connection, reduce the resistance value, and tightly fitted for enhance mechanical stability.
Regarding Claim 10, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but is silent regarding a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors.
Krokoszinski et al. shows there are a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors (see Figs. 5-7, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors, Paragraph [0029]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors as taught by Krokoszinski et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to form a double inductor coil to achieve desirable operating and coupling characteristics as required based on design requirement.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martinez et al. [U.S. Patent 11,581,121].
Regarding Claim 2, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but is silent regarding the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors.
Martinez et al. shows the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (Col. 4, Lines 40-51, or element 601) through the first and second connectors (Input A, Output A, see Figs. 2-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors as taught by Martinez et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to improve heat dissipation by effective removal of excess heat (Col. 4, Lines 40-51).
Regarding Claim 3, Krokoszinski et al. shows electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are provided on the cold plate (4) and wherein the electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are electrically coupled to at least the first and second connectors of the inductor (see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7, elements 421, 425 electrically coupled to elements 31, 36 or elements 451, 452, 453, 454 electrically coupled to respective elements 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments.
Martinez et al. shows a device (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting additional thermal and mechanical connections (601, 603, Col. 5, Lines 58-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-5) are added to the first and/or second segments (205b, 205c, 205d and/or 215b, 215c, 215d).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments as taught by Martinez et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate heat dissipation to accept excess heat emitted to prevent overheating (Col. 5, Lines 58-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. [WO 2020/087972].
Regarding Claim 5, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a material for the toroidal core is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron.
Xu et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a material for the toroidal core (2) is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron (see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a material for the toroidal core is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron as taught by Xu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to achieve high magnetic permeability which creates strong magnetic fields and minimizes flux leakage obtaining desirable operating characteristics.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inaba et al. [WO 2014/115667].
Regarding Claim 6, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm.
Inaba et al. shows a device (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting a spacing (t) is between the conductive winding (2) and the toroidal core (3) is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm (see English translation, the interval can be 0.2 mm or more and 1 mm or less).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm as taught by Inaba et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate insulation distance to prevent unwanted connection and reduce both height and width of the device (see English translation).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation distance to prevent unwanted connection while achieve miniaturization. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350501].
Regarding Claim 7, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first and second connectors are contact pads, which are provided upon the first winding segment.
Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting the first (401a or 401b) and second (402a or 402b) connectors are contact pads (see Figs. 4A-4B), which are provided upon the first winding segment (41, see Figs. 4A-4B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second connectors are contact pads, which are provided upon the first winding segment as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate electrical connection, reduce the resistance value, and tightly fitted for enhance mechanical stability (Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hasegawa shows the contact pads are round pads (see Figs. 4A-4B, elements 401a or 401b and elements 402a or 402b are round pads).
Moreover, having the contact pads are round pads would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical characteristics. 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.). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 9, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (401a, 401b, 402a, 402b).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have stabilising pads as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate electrical connection, reduce the resistance value, and tightly fitted for enhance mechanical stability (Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments.
Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting an insulation layer (insulating film, Paragraph [0058]) is coated around the first and second winding segments (41, 42, Paragraph [0058]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and electrical shorts.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quilici [WO 2011/014200].
Regarding Claim 10, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but is silent regarding a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors.
Quilici shows there are a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors (see Fig. 5B, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors shown between elements WA1/W1B, W2A/W2B, W3A/W3B, and W4A/W4B or see Fig. 6B, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors as shown between elements WA1/W1B and W2A/W2B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors as taught by Krokoszinski et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate a dual common mode filter to achieve desirable operating and coupling characteristics as required based on design requirement (Page 27).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0260538].
Regarding Claim 11, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments.
Tanaka et al. shows a device (Fig. 10 with teachings from Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting additional thermal and mechanical connections (30, 31) are added to the first and/or second segments (3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments as taught by Tanaka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate heat dissipation to prevent overheating and improve vibration resistant characteristics (Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0358672].
Regarding Claim 13, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments.
Tamura et al. shows an inductor component (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting an insulation layer (90, Paragraph [0103]) is coated around the first and second winding segments (411a, 412a, 410a, Paragraph [0103], see Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments as taught by Tamura et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and electrical shorts; and improve stability of the inductor component (Paragraph [0105]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. [CN 110911128] and Rao [U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0090916].
Regarding Claim 19, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Rao shows an inductor (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material (air space between successive turns is impregnated by epoxy, Paragraph [0031]), and an axial gap between the toroidal core (1) and the conductive winding (26) is filled with metal powders (thermally conductive epoxy will contain metal powders by the thermally conductive material, Paragraph [0032]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Rao for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to protect against environmental deterioration and form a rigid subassembly for positioning the coil far from any gap reduces the fringe loss (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishide et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0004914] and Hwang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272948].
Regarding Claim 19, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Nishide et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material (2) including epoxy or silicone material (a radial gap between element 6 or 7 is filled with element 2, Paragraph [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material as taught by Nishide et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and shorts to protect against environmental deterioration.
Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. does not show an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Hwang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2D) teaching and suggesting an axial gap between the toroidal core (10) and the conductive winding (200) is filled with metal powders (102b, Paragraph [0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Hwang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. to achieve electromagnetic wave shielding effect (Paragraph [0053]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. [WO 2023/042512] and Hwang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272948].
Regarding Claim 19, Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Sasaki et al. shows a device (Fig. 10 with teachings from Figs. 1-9) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material (90) including epoxy or silicone material (a radial gap between element 41 or 42 is filled with element 90, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material as taught by Sasaki et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al. and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and shorts and positions of the turns are stabilized (see English translation).
Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. does not show an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Hwang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2D) teaching and suggesting an axial gap between the toroidal core (10) and the conductive winding (200) is filled with metal powders (102b, Paragraph [0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Hwang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kittila et al. in view of Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. to achieve electromagnetic wave shielding effect (Paragraph [0053]).
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. [DE 4221769] in view of Kittila et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0148048] and Schutten et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0048168].
Regarding Claim 1, Krokoszinski et al. shows a filter inductor (Figs. 5-6 and/or Fig. 7 with teachings from Figs. 1-2, choke coils is a type of filter) for a power generation converter (choke coils as shown in Figs. 5-7 can be for a power generation converter based on intended use, Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]); the filter inductor comprising a toroidal core (1) and a conductive winding (521-527, 422-424, 32-35) having a first connector (31) and a second connector (36) positioned at each end of the winding (see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7), wherein: the conductive winding comprises at least first (422-424 OR 521-527, 32-35) and second (521-527, 32-35 OR 422-424) winding segments which are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around the toroidal core that extends from the first connector to the second connector (elements 521-527, 32-35, 422-424, are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around element 1 that extends from element 31 to element 36, see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7); and an inner side of the conductive winding (521-527, 422-424, 32-35) that is positioned inside the toroidal core (1) extends parallel to an axis of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7, an inner side of elements 521-527, 422-424, 32-35 is positioned inside element 1 extends parallel to an axis of element 1).
Krokoszinski et al. does not explicitly disclose having an outer side of the conductive winding that is positioned outside the toroidal core is formed at an angle with respect to the axis of the toroidal core.
Kittila et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting an inner side (62 or 651) of the conductive winding (6) that is positioned inside the toroidal core (2) extends parallel to an axis (4) of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-2, element 62 or 651 is positioned inside element 2 extends parallel to an axis 4 of element 2, Paragraph [0021]), and an outer side (688) of the conductive winding (6) that is positioned outside the toroidal core (2) is formed at an angle with respect to the axis (4) of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-2, element 688 is positioned outside of element 2 is formed at an angle with respect to the axis 4 of element 2, Paragraph [0036]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an inner side of the conductive winding that is positioned inside the toroidal core extends parallel to an axis of the toroidal core, and an outer side of the conductive winding that is positioned outside the toroidal core is formed at an angle with respect to the axis of the toroidal core as taught by Kittila et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. to improve good space utilization and achieve large surface area which facilitates cooling of the coil (Paragraph [0005]).
In addition, Schutten et al. shows a filter inductor for a power generation convertor (Paragraph [0001]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a filter inductor for a power generation convertor as taught by Schutten et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. to achieve desirable operating electrical characteristics with high current carrying capability (Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, Krokoszinski et al. shows the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (4, Paragraph [0020], material of aluminum nitride and aluminum oxide can be used as a cold plate) through the first and second connectors (31, 36).
Regarding Claim 3, Krokoszinski et al. shows electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are provided on the cold plate (4) and wherein the electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are electrically coupled to at least the first and second connectors of the inductor (see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7, elements 421, 425 electrically coupled to elements 31, 36 or elements 451, 452, 453, 454 electrically coupled to respective elements 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Krokoszinski et al. shows the conductive winding is made of aluminum or copper (Abstract, claim 5, Paragraphs [0018], [0020]).
Schutten et al. shows the conductive winding is made of aluminum or copper (Paragraphs [0009]-[0016], claim 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Krokoszinski et al. shows the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (elements 421, 425, 451, 452, 453, 454 can be used as stabilising pads).
Regarding Claim 10, Krokoszinski et al. shows there are a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors (see Figs. 5-7, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors, Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kittila et al. shows an outer side (688 or 652) of the conductive winding has a greater width than an inner side (651, 62) of the conductive winding closer to a center of the toroidal core (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martinez et al. [U.S. Patent 11,581,121].
Regarding Claim 2, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Martinez et al. shows the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (Col. 4, Lines 40-51, or element 601) through the first and second connectors (Input A, Output A, see Figs. 2-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors as taught by Martinez et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to improve heat dissipation by effective removal of excess heat (Col. 4, Lines 40-51).
Regarding Claim 3, Krokoszinski et al. shows electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are provided on the cold plate (4) and wherein the electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are electrically coupled to at least the first and second connectors of the inductor (see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7, elements 421, 425 electrically coupled to elements 31, 36 or elements 451, 452, 453, 454 electrically coupled to respective elements 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments.
Martinez et al. shows a device (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting additional thermal and mechanical connections (601, 603, Col. 5, Lines 58-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-5) are added to the first and/or second segments (205b, 205c, 205d and/or 215b, 215c, 215d).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments as taught by Martinez et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to facilitate heat dissipation to accept excess heat emitted to prevent overheating (Col. 5, Lines 58-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. [WO 2020/087972].
Regarding Claim 5, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a material for the toroidal core is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron.
Xu et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a material for the toroidal core (2) is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron (see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a material for the toroidal core is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron as taught by Xu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to achieve high magnetic permeability which creates strong magnetic fields and minimizes flux leakage obtaining desirable operating characteristics.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inaba et al. [WO 2014/115667].
Regarding Claim 6, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm.
Inaba et al. shows a device (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting a spacing (t) is between the conductive winding (2) and the toroidal core (3) is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm (see English translation, the interval can be 0.2 mm or more and 1 mm or less).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm as taught by Inaba et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to facilitate insulation distance to prevent unwanted connection and reduce both height and width of the device (see English translation).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation distance to prevent unwanted connection while achieve miniaturization. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350501].
Regarding Claim 7, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first and second connectors are contact pads, which are provided upon the first winding segment.
Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting the first (401a or 401b) and second (402a or 402b) connectors are contact pads (see Figs. 4A-4B), which are provided upon the first winding segment (41, see Figs. 4A-4B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second connectors are contact pads, which are provided upon the first winding segment as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to facilitate electrical connection, reduce the resistance value, and tightly fitted for enhance mechanical stability (Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hasegawa shows the contact pads are round pads (see Figs. 4A-4B, elements 401a or 401b and elements 402a or 402b are round pads).
Moreover, having the contact pads are round pads would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical characteristics. 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.). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 9, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (401a, 401b, 402a, 402b).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have stabilising pads as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to facilitate electrical connection, reduce the resistance value, and tightly fitted for enhance mechanical stability (Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments.
Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting an insulation layer (insulating film, Paragraph [0058]) is coated around the first and second winding segments (41, 42, Paragraph [0058]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and electrical shorts.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0260538].
Regarding Claim 11, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments.
Tanaka et al. shows a device (Fig. 10 with teachings from Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting additional thermal and mechanical connections (30, 31) are added to the first and/or second segments (3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments as taught by Tanaka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to facilitate heat dissipation to prevent overheating and improve vibration resistant characteristics (Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0358672].
Regarding Claim 13, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments.
Tamura et al. shows an inductor component (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting an insulation layer (90, Paragraph [0103]) is coated around the first and second winding segments (411a, 412a, 410a, Paragraph [0103], see Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments as taught by Tamura et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and electrical shorts; and improve stability of the inductor component (Paragraph [0105]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. [CN 110911128] and Rao [U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0090916].
Regarding Claim 19, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Rao shows an inductor (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material (air space between successive turns is impregnated by epoxy, Paragraph [0031]), and an axial gap between the toroidal core (1) and the conductive winding (26) is filled with metal powders (thermally conductive epoxy will contain metal powders by the thermally conductive material, Paragraph [0032]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Rao for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to protect against environmental deterioration and form a rigid subassembly for positioning the coil far from any gap reduces the fringe loss (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishide et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0004914] and Hwang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272948].
Regarding Claim 19, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Nishide et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material (2) including epoxy or silicone material (a radial gap between element 6 or 7 is filled with element 2, Paragraph [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material as taught by Nishide et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and shorts to protect against environmental deterioration.
Krokoszinski in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. does not show an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Hwang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2D) teaching and suggesting an axial gap between the toroidal core (10) and the conductive winding (200) is filled with metal powders (102b, Paragraph [0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Hwang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. to achieve electromagnetic wave shielding effect (Paragraph [0053]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. [WO 2023/042512] and Hwang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272948].
Regarding Claim 19, Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al. and Schutten et al. to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Sasaki et al. shows a device (Fig. 10 with teachings from Figs. 1-9) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material (90) including epoxy or silicone material (a radial gap between element 41 or 42 is filled with element 90, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material as taught by Sasaki et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and shorts and positions of the turns are stabilized (see English translation).
Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. does not show an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Hwang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2D) teaching and suggesting an axial gap between the toroidal core (10) and the conductive winding (200) is filled with metal powders (102b, Paragraph [0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Hwang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Krokoszinski et al. in view of Kittila et al., Schutten et al., Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. to achieve electromagnetic wave shielding effect (Paragraph [0053]).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici [WO 2011/014200] in view of Kittila et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0148048].
Regarding Claim 1, Quilici shows a filter inductor (Figs. 5A-6B with teachings from Fig. 4, Figs. 1-3, and Figs. 14C-14D, Pages 27-28) for a power generation converter (elements 500, 600, or 400 can be for a power generation converter based on intended use); the filter inductor comprising a toroidal core (506, 606, 410, or 110) and a conductive winding (504/508, 604/608, 108/416, or 108/116) having a first connector (W1A, see Figs. 5A-6B and Fig. 1) and a second connector (W1B, see Figs. 5A-6B and Fig. 1) positioned at each end of the winding (see Figs. 5A-6B and Fig. 1), wherein the conductive winding comprises at least first (508, 608, 416, 116 OR 504, 604, 108, 108) and second (504, 604, 108, 108 OR 508, 608, 416, 116) winding segments which are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around the toroidal core that extends from the first connector to the second connector (elements 504/508, 604/608, 108/416, or 108/116 are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around elements 506, 606, 410, or 110 that extends from element W1A to element W1B, see Figs. 5A-6B, Fig. 4 and Fig. 1).
Quilici does not explicitly disclose having an inner side of the conductive winding that is positioned inside the toroidal core extends parallel to an axis of the toroidal core, and an outer side of the conductive winding that is positioned outside the toroidal core is formed at an angle with respect to the axis of the toroidal core.
Kittila et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting an inner side (62 or 651) of the conductive winding (6) that is positioned inside the toroidal core (2) extends parallel to an axis (4) of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-2, element 62 or 651 is positioned inside element 2 extends parallel to an axis 4 of element 2, Paragraph [0021]), and an outer side (688) of the conductive winding (6) that is positioned outside the toroidal core (2) is formed at an angle with respect to the axis (4) of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-2, element 688 is positioned outside of element 2 is formed at an angle with respect to the axis 4 of element 2, Paragraph [0036]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an inner side of the conductive winding that is positioned inside the toroidal core extends parallel to an axis of the toroidal core, and an outer side of the conductive winding that is positioned outside the toroidal core is formed at an angle with respect to the axis of the toroidal core as taught by Kittila et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici to improve good space utilization and achieve large surface area which facilitates cooling of the coil (Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 4, Quilici shows the conductive winding is made of aluminum or copper (Page 22).
Regarding Claim 9, Quilici shows the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (pads 1291, 1294 can be used as stabilising pads).
Regarding Claim 10, Quilici shows there are a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors (see Fig. 5B, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors shown between elements WA1/W1B, W2A/W2B, W3A/W3B, and W4A/W4B or see Fig. 6B, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors as shown between elements WA1/W1B and W2A/W2B).
Regarding Claim 12, Kittila et al. shows an outer side (688 or 652) of the conductive winding has a greater width than an inner side (651, 62) of the conductive winding closer to a center of the toroidal core (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici [WO 2011/014200] in view of Dent [WO 2018/118839].
Regarding Claim 1, Quilici shows a filter inductor (Figs. 5A-6B with teachings from Fig. 4, Figs. 1-3, and Figs. 14C-14D, Pages 27-28) for a power generation converter (elements 500, 600, or 400 can be for a power generation converter based on intended use); the filter inductor comprising a toroidal core (506, 606, 410, or 110) and a conductive winding (504/508, 604/608, 108/416, or 108/116) having a first connector (W1A, see Figs. 5A-6B and Fig. 1) and a second connector (W1B, see Figs. 5A-6B and Fig. 1) positioned at each end of the winding (see Figs. 5A-6B and Fig. 1), wherein the conductive winding comprises at least first (508, 608, 416, 116 OR 504, 604, 108, 108) and second (504, 604, 108, 108 OR 508, 608, 416, 116) winding segments which are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around the toroidal core that extends from the first connector to the second connector (elements 504/508, 604/608, 108/416, or 108/116 are connected to each other so as to form a continuous winding around elements 506, 606, 410, or 110 that extends from element W1A to element W1B, see Figs. 5A-6B, Fig. 4 and Fig. 1).
Quilici does not explicitly disclose having an inner side of the conductive winding that is positioned inside the toroidal core extends parallel to an axis of the toroidal core, and an outer side of the conductive winding that is positioned outside the toroidal core is formed at an angle with respect to the axis of the toroidal core.
Dent shows a device (Figs. 1-3) teaching and suggesting an inner side (inner side of element 100) of the conductive winding (100, 120) that is positioned inside the toroidal core (110) extends parallel to an axis of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-3, inner side of element 100 is positioned inside element 110 extends parallel to an axis of element 110), and an outer side (120) of the conductive winding (100, 120) that is positioned outside the toroidal core (110) is formed at an angle (offset) with respect to the axis of the toroidal core (see Figs. 1-3, element 120 is positioned outside of element 110 is formed at an angle, by offset, with respect to the axis of element 110, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an inner side of the conductive winding that is positioned inside the toroidal core extends parallel to an axis of the toroidal core, and an outer side of the conductive winding that is positioned outside the toroidal core is formed at an angle with respect to the axis of the toroidal core as taught by Dent for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici to enable efficient fill of winding area to achieve desirable inductances (Abstract, Advantage).
Regarding Claim 4, Quilici shows the conductive winding is made of aluminum or copper (Page 22).
Regarding Claim 9, Quilici shows the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (pads 1291, 1294 can be used as stabilising pads).
Regarding Claim 10, Quilici shows there are a plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors (see Fig. 5B, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors shown between elements WA1/W1B, W2A/W2B, W3A/W3B, and W4A/W4B or see Fig. 6B, plurality of winding segments formed and linked to form multiple magnetically coupled inductors as shown between elements WA1/W1B and W2A/W2B).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krokoszinski et al. [DE 4221769].
Regarding Claim 2, Quilici discloses the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (Page 44). Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent is silent regarding the inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors.
Krokoszinski et al. shows an inductive component (Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7) teaching and suggesting filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (4, Paragraph [0020], material of aluminum nitride and aluminum oxide can be used as a cold plate) through the first and second connectors (31, 36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors as taught by Krokoszinski et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to improve heat dissipation to prevent overheating.
Regarding Claim 3, Krokoszinski et al. shows electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are provided on the cold plate (4) and wherein the electrodes (421, 425 or 451, 452, 453, 454) are electrically coupled to at least the first and second connectors of the inductor (see Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 5-7, elements 421, 425 electrically coupled to elements 31, 36 or elements 451, 452, 453, 454 electrically coupled to respective elements 3).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eckl [WO 2006/053862].
Regarding Claim 2, Quilici discloses the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (Page 44). Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent is silent regarding the inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors.
Eckl shows an inductive circuit component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate (1, see English translation, element 1 can dissipate heat generated during operation) through the first and second connectors (elements 6, 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the filter inductor is mounted upon a cold plate through the first and second connectors as taught by Eckl for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to improve heat dissipation to prevent overheating (see English translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Eckl shows electrodes (8, 9) are provided on the cold plate (1) and wherein the electrodes (8, 9) are electrically coupled to at least the first and second connectors of the inductor (see Figs. 1-2, elements 8, 9 electrically coupled to elements 6, 7).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. [WO 2020/087972].
Regarding Claim 5, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a material for the toroidal core is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron.
Xu et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a material for the toroidal core (2) is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron (see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a material for the toroidal core is made of Glassy Metal, Silicon Iron, Nickel Iron as taught by Xu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to achieve high magnetic permeability which creates strong magnetic fields and minimizes flux leakage obtaining desirable operating characteristics.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inaba et al. [WO 2014/115667].
Regarding Claim 6, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm.
Inaba et al. shows a device (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting a spacing (t) is between the conductive winding (2) and the toroidal core (3) is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm (see English translation, the interval can be 0.2 mm or more and 1 mm or less).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm as taught by Inaba et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to facilitate insulation distance to prevent unwanted connection and reduce both height and width of the device (see English translation).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a spacing is between the conductive winding and the toroidal core is between 0.25 and 1.5 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation distance to prevent unwanted connection while achieve miniaturization. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350501].
Regarding Claim 7, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first and second connectors are contact pads, which are provided upon the first winding segment.
Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting the first (401a or 401b) and second (402a or 402b) connectors are contact pads (see Figs. 4A-4B), which are provided upon the first winding segment (41, see Figs. 4A-4B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second connectors are contact pads, which are provided upon the first winding segment as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to facilitate electrical connection, reduce the resistance value, and tightly fitted for enhance mechanical stability (Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hasegawa shows the contact pads are round pads (see Figs. 4A-4B, elements 401a or 401b and elements 402a or 402b are round pads).
Moreover, having the contact pads are round pads would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical characteristics. 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.). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 9, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting the inductor is provided with stabilising pads (401a, 401b, 402a, 402b).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have stabilising pads as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to facilitate electrical connection, reduce the resistance value, and tightly fitted for enhance mechanical stability (Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments.
Hasegawa shows a coil component (Figs. 4A-4B) teaching and suggesting an insulation layer (insulating film, Paragraph [0058]) is coated around the first and second winding segments (41, 42, Paragraph [0058]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments as taught by Hasegawa for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and electrical shorts.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martinez et al. [U.S. Patent 11,581,121].
Regarding Claim 11, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments.
Martinez et al. shows a device (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting additional thermal and mechanical connections (601, 603, Col. 5, Lines 58-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-5) are added to the first and/or second segments (205b, 205c, 205d and/or 215b, 215c, 215d).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments as taught by Martinez et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to facilitate heat dissipation to accept excess heat emitted to prevent overheating (Col. 5, Lines 58-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0260538].
Regarding Claim 11, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments.
Tanaka et al. shows a device (Fig. 10 with teachings from Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting additional thermal and mechanical connections (30, 31) are added to the first and/or second segments (3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have additional thermal and mechanical connections are added to the first and/or second segments as taught by Tanaka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to facilitate heat dissipation to prevent overheating and improve vibration resistant characteristics (Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0111599].
Regarding Claim 12, Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an outer side of the conductive winding has a greater width than an inner side of the conductive winding closer to a center of the toroidal core.
Xu shows an outer side (outside side of element 16) of the conductive winding has a greater width than an inner side (inner side of element 16) of the conductive winding closer to a center of the toroidal core (12, see Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0011], [0033]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an outer side of the conductive winding has a greater width than an inner side of the conductive winding closer to a center of the toroidal core as taught by Xu for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Dent to arrange maximum-density coils on surfaces of the core to maximize induction efficiency (Paragraphs [0012], [0033]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0358672].
Regarding Claim 13, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments.
Tamura et al. shows an inductor component (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting an insulation layer (90, Paragraph [0103]) is coated around the first and second winding segments (411a, 412a, 410a, Paragraph [0103], see Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulation layer is coated around the first and second winding segments as taught by Tamura et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and electrical shorts; and improve stability of the inductor component (Paragraph [0105]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. [CN 110911128] and Rao [U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0090916].
Regarding Claim 19, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Quilici in view of Kittila et al. and Xiao et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Rao shows an inductor (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material (air space between successive turns is impregnated by epoxy, Paragraph [0031]), and an axial gap between the toroidal core (1) and the conductive winding (26) is filled with metal powders (thermally conductive epoxy will contain metal powders by the thermally conductive material, Paragraph [0032]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Rao for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. and Xiao et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to protect against environmental deterioration and form a rigid subassembly for positioning the coil far from any gap reduces the fringe loss (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishide et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0004914] and Hwang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272948].
Regarding Claim 19, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Quilici in view of Kittila et al. and Xiao et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Nishide et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material (2) including epoxy or silicone material (a radial gap between element 6 or 7 is filled with element 2, Paragraph [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material as taught by Nishide et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. and Xiao et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and shorts to protect against environmental deterioration.
Quilici in view of Kittila et al., Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent, Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. does not show an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Hwang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2D) teaching and suggesting an axial gap between the toroidal core (10) and the conductive winding (200) is filled with metal powders (102b, Paragraph [0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Hwang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al., Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent, Xiao et al., and Nishide et al. to achieve electromagnetic wave shielding effect (Paragraph [0053]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. [WO 2023/042512] and Hwang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272948].
Regarding Claim 19, Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered, and a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Xiao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting edges of winding strips (01) of the conductive winding are chamfered (11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have edges of winding strips of the conductive winding are chamfered as taught by Xiao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent to increase the area of the coil in contact with air, improving the overall heat dissipation effect (see English translation).
Quilici in view of Kittila et al. and Xiao et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent and Xiao et al. does not show a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material, and an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Sasaki et al. shows a device (Fig. 10 with teachings from Figs. 1-9) teaching and suggesting a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material (90) including epoxy or silicone material (a radial gap between element 41 or 42 is filled with element 90, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a radial gap between the winding strips is filled with an insulating material including epoxy or silicone material as taught by Sasaki et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al. and Xiao et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent and Xiao et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and shorts and positions of the turns are stabilized (see English translation).
Quilici in view of Kittila et al., Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent, Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. does not show an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders.
Hwang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2D) teaching and suggesting an axial gap between the toroidal core (10) and the conductive winding (200) is filled with metal powders (102b, Paragraph [0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial gap between the toroidal core and the conductive winding is filled with metal powders as taught by Hwang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Quilici in view of Kittila et al., Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. OR Quilici in view of Dent, Xiao et al., and Sasaki et al. to achieve electromagnetic wave shielding effect (Paragraph [0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights