Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/991,590

INDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 21, 2022
Examiner
NGUYEN, TUYEN T
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Lite-On Technology Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1001 granted / 1226 resolved
+13.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1276
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.5%
+14.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1226 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2, Figure 3, Claims 1-11 and 13 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7-9 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. Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for “the third winding set”. Claims 8-9 inherit the defect of the parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. [US 2013/0033351 A1]. Regarding claims 1-3, Kim et al. discloses an inductor device [500, figure 5], comprising: a frame portion [figure 5]; a first winding set having a first winding wire [540] and a first magnetic core [510]; a second winding set having a second winding [550] wire and a second magnetic core [520], wherein winding numbers of the two winding sets are identical or different and winding directions of the two winding sets are identical or different; and a first metal piece [530], wherein the first winding set, the second winding set and the first metal piece are disposed in the frame portion, the first metal piece substantially connects the first winding set, the second winding set and the frame portion, and a material of the two winding sets is different from a material of the first metal piece. Regarding claims 4-5, Kim et al. discloses the first metal piece is formed of a high magnetic permeability material; the two winding sets and the frame portion are formed of a low magnetic permeability material [para 0082], wherein the two magnetic cores are tightly engaged with two contact surfaces of the first metal piece [figure 5]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 6-10, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. Regarding claims 6-7, Kim et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for a third winding set and a second metal piece. Kim et al., in other embodiment of figure 30, discloses additional winding set with windings [3060, 3070, 3080, 3090], cores [3010, 3020, 3030, 3040] and metal pieces [I-cores 3050]. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure of figure 5 in Kim et al., to include more winding set of figure 30, also in Kim et al., for the purpose of providing different purposes and/or functions for the device and/or providing multiphase(s). Regarding claims 8-9, Kim et al., discloses in figure 30, the winding numbers of adjacent two of the three winding sets are identical or different and winding directions of adjacent two of the three winding sets are identical or different. Regarding claim 10, the specific low permeability material uses for the first and second metal pieces would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating different desired magnetic field/flux characteristics [note, Kim et al. discloses different embodiments use different magnetic materials for the core and/or the metal pieces]. Claim(s) 1-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro [JP 2001-230134 A] in view of Kim et al. Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-7, Masahiro discloses a magnetic device [figure 4] comprising; - a frame portion [figure 4]; - a first winding set having a first winding wire and a first magnetic core of the frame portion [figure 4] - a second winding set having a second winding wire and a second magnetic core of the frame portion, wherein winding numbers of the two winding sets are identical or different and winding directions of the two winding sets are identical or different; - a first metal piece [one of the I-shaped cores], wherein the first winding set, the second winding set and the first metal piece are disposed in the frame portion, the first metal piece substantially connects the first winding set, the second winding set and the frame portion; - a third winding set and a second metal piece [one of the I-shaped cores], wherein the third winding set and the second metal piece are disposed in the frame portion, the first metal piece and the second metal piece respectively connect adjacent two of the first, second and third winding sets and the frame portion [figure 4]. Masahiro disclose the instant claimed invention except for a material of the two winding sets is different from a material of the first metal piece. Kim et al. discloses an inductor device [500, figure 5], comprising: a frame portion [figure 5]; a first winding set having a first winding wire [540] and a first magnetic core [510]; a second winding set having a second winding [550] wire and a second magnetic core [520], wherein winding numbers of the two winding sets are identical or different and winding directions of the two winding sets are identical or different; and a first metal piece [530], wherein the first winding set, the second winding set and the first metal piece are disposed in the frame portion, the first metal piece substantially connects the first winding set, the second winding set and the frame portion, and a material of the two winding sets is different from a material of the first metal piece. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the material different between the core and the metal piece of Kim et al., in Masahiro for the purpose of facilitating different desired magnetic flux/field characteristic and reducing eddy current losses [para 0083]. Regarding claims 4-5, Kim et al. discloses the first metal piece is formed of a high magnetic permeability material; the two winding sets and the frame portion are formed of a low magnetic permeability material [para 0082], wherein the two magnetic cores are tightly engaged with two contact surfaces of the first metal piece [figure 5]. Regarding claims 8-9, Masahiro discloses the winding numbers of adjacent two of the three winding sets are identical or different and winding directions of adjacent two of the three winding sets are identical or different [figure 4]. Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. further discloses different materials between the metal piece and the cores/frames [figures 5-6, 12-13]. Kim et al. also discloses different arrangement of the metal piece(s) [5-6, 12-13, 30]. The specific low permeability material uses for the first and second metal pieces would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating different desired magnetic field/flux characteristics [note, Kim et al. discloses different embodiments use different magnetic materials for the core and/or the metal pieces]. Regarding claim 11, Masahiro discloses adjacent two of the three winding sets respectively are tightly engaged with two contact surfaces of the first and the second metal pieces [figure 4]. Regarding claim 13, Masahiro discloses the frame portion comprises a first frame portion, a second frame portion, and a third frame portion, wherein the first and third frame portions, respectively stacked on top and bottom of the first metal piece, are tightly engaged with two opposite sides of the first metal piece, wherein the third and second frame portions, respectively stacked on top and bottom of the second metal piece, are tightly engaged with two opposite sides of the second metal piece [figure 4 shows 3 different core/winding assemblies stacked and separated by metal pieces I-shaped cores]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1996. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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. /TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603221
IMPROVED LOW-EMI TRANSFORMER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597552
Magnetic Device and the Method to Make the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592633
POWER CONVERSION MODULE AND MAGNETIC DEVICE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592335
LAMINATED COIL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586708
INNOVATIVE PLANAR ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPONENT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+0.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1226 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month