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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in grounds of the new rejection.
.Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/021073 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
a. Claim 1 of the instant application number 18021057, recites, “a coil: and a magnetic core, the magnetic core including a first core and a second core formed into a 6 shape by being combined in an X direction, the first core including a first end core part, at least a part of a middle core part and at least parts of both side core parts including a first side core part and a second side core part, the second core including a second end core part, a remaining part of the middle core part and remaining parts of the first and second side core parts, the first end core part facing a first end surface of the coil, the second end core part facing a second end surface of the coil, the middle core part being arranged inside the coil, the first and second side core parts being arranged outside the coil to sandwich the middle core part, a relative magnetic permeability of the second core being higher than that of the first core, each of the first and second side core parts of the first core having a tip surface facing the second core, a surface of the second core having facing surfaces facing the tip surfaces, an outer side edge of the facing surface being located inwardly of that of the tip surface in a Y direction and an inner side edge of the facing surface and that of the tip surface being substantially aligned in the Y direction when the magnetic core is viewed from a Z direction, a width in the Y direction of the facing surface being shorter than that of the tip surface, the X direction being a direction along an axial direction of the middle core part, the Y direction being a parallel direction of the middle core part, the first side core part and the second side core part, and the Z direction being a direction orthogonal to both the X direction and the Y direction” and wherein: the outer side edge of the facing surface is located inwardly in the Y direction of the outer side edge of the tip surface, and a width in the Y direction of the facing surface is shorter than a width in the Y direction of the tip surface. (same elements recited in claim 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/021073.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
1 Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2011176253) (English translation) in view of Sakita (JP 2010027946)(English translation) and Lee et al. (US 20070159289).
Regarding claim 1, Ono (figures 1-2 and pages 1-4) discloses a coil (10): and a magnetic core (12), the magnetic core including a first core and a second core formed into a shape by being combined in an X direction (see figure 1), the first core including a first end core part (14), at least a part of a middle core part (15) and at least parts of both side core parts including a first side core part (16) and a second side core part (17), the second core including a second end core part (19), a remaining part of the middle core part (20) and remaining parts of the first and second side core parts (21, 22), the first end core part facing a first end surface of the coil (see figures 1-2), the second end core part facing a second end surface of the coil (see figures 1-2), the middle core part being arranged inside the coil (10) (see figures 1-2), the first and second side core parts being arranged outside the coil to sandwich the middle core part (see figures 1-2), each of the first and second side core parts (16/17) of the first core having a tip surface facing the second core (see figures 1-2), a surface of the second core having facing surfaces facing the tip surfaces (see figures 1-2),an inner side edge of the facing surface and that of the tip surface being substantially aligned in the Y direction when the magnetic core is viewed from a Z direction (see figures 1-2), the X direction being a direction along an axial direction of the middle core part(see figures 1-2), the Y direction being a parallel direction of the middle core part (see figures 1-2), the first side core part and the second side core part, and the Z direction being a direction orthogonal to both the X direction and the Y direction (see figures 1-2).
Ono does not expressly disclose an outer side edge of the facing surface being located inwardly of that of the tip surface in a Y direction and a width in the Y direction of the facing surface being shorter than that of the tip surface; the part of the middle core part being longer than the remaining part of the middle core part and a relative magnetic permeability of the second core being higher than that of the first core.
Sakita (figure 5-2) discloses a teaching an outer side edge of the facing surface being located inwardly of that of the tip surface in a Y direction (see core 51a) and a width in the Y direction of the facing surface being shorter than that of the tip surface. (see core 51a)
Lee et al.(figures 1-3 and para 0037-0046) discloses teaching wherein the part of the middle core part (27) being longer than the remaining part of the middle core part (15) and a relative magnetic permeability of the second core being higher than that of the first core (see para 0041/0046) .
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein an outer side edge of the facing surface being located inwardly of that of the tip surface in a Y direction and a width in the Y direction of the facing surface being shorter than that of the tip surface as taught by Sakita to the inductive device of Ono so as to allow for a more compact inductive device design; thereby saving valuable time and production cost when making the inductive device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the part of the middle core part being longer than the remaining part of the middle core part and a relative magnetic permeability of the second core being higher than that of the first core
as taught by Lee et al. to the inductive device of Ono so as to allow the inductive device to manage high DC currents without saturating and also allow for the overall loss of the magnetic element and the application frequency to be low.
Regarding claim 2, Ono (figures 1-2 and pages 1-4) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the width in the Y direction of the facing surface is 60 % or more and 92 % or less of that of the tip surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design wherein the width in the Y direction of the facing surface is 60 % or more and 92 % or less of that of the tip surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such as to allow for a more compact inductive device design; thereby saving valuable time and production cost when making the inductive device.
Regarding claim 3, Ono (figures 1-2 and pages 1-4) discloses the core can be designed as a compact powder core designing wherein the first core is a compact of a composite material, a soft magnetic powder being dispersed in a resin in the composite material, and the second core is a powder compact made of a raw powder containing a soft magnetic powder would have been an obvious design consideration based on in intended application/environment use. Such as to offer advantages like higher efficiency (lower core/eddy current losses), enabling smaller, lighter, and more powerful motors and transformers, especially at high frequencies
Regarding claim 7, Ono (figures 1-2 and pages 1-4) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein {(rixWsi)/( r2xWs2)} satisfies a condition of being 0.1 or more and 1.6 or less, where ri denotes the relative magnetic permeability of the first core, Wsi denotes the width in the Y direction of the tip surface, r2 denotes the relative magnetic permeability of the second core and Ws2 denotes the width in the Y direction of the facing surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design wherein {(rixWsi)/( r2xWs2)} satisfies a condition of being 0.1 or more and 1.6 or less, where ri denotes the relative magnetic permeability of the first core, Wsi denotes the width in the Y direction of the tip surface, r2 denotes the relative magnetic permeability of the second core and Ws2 denotes the width in the Y direction of the facing surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such as to allow for a more compact inductive device design; thereby saving valuable time and production cost when making the inductive device.
Regarding claim 8, Ono (figures 1-2 and pages 1-4) discloses the first core includes each of the first and second side core parts entirely, and the facing surfaces are provided on the second end core part of the second core.
Regarding claim 9, Ono (figures 1-2 and pages 1-4) discloses the first core includes a part of each of the first and second side core parts, and the facing surface is provided on the remaining part of each of the first and second side core parts of the second core.
Regarding claims 10-11, It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al.(figures 1-3 and para 0037-0046) discloses wherein: the relative magnetic permeability of the second core is higher than that of the first core such that magnetic flux between the tip surface and the facing surface is balanced. (note: the combined features Ono in view of Lee et al will allow for the magnetic flux between the tip surface and the facing surface to be balanced)
2 Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2011176253) (English translation) in view of Sakita (JP 2010027946)(English translation) and Lee et al. (US 20070159289) in further view of Inaba (US 2017/0154719)
Regarding claim 4-5, the modified inducive of Ono discloses all limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein the relative magnetic permeability of the first core is 5 or more and 50 or less. and wherein the relative magnetic permeability of the second core is 50 or more and 500 or less
Inaba (para 0080-0081) discloses wherein the relative magnetic permeability of the first core is 5 or more and 50 or less and wherein the relative magnetic permeability of the second core is 50 or more and 500 or less
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the relative magnetic permeability of the first core is 5 or more and 50 or less. and wherein the relative magnetic permeability of the second core is 50 or more and 500 or less core as taught by Inaba to the inductive device of Ono so that the overall loss of the magnetic element increases and the application frequency is low.
Regarding claim 6, the modified inducive of Ono discloses all limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of the relative magnetic permeability of the second core to that of the first core is 1.1 or more and 12 or less.
Inaba (para 0080-0081) discloses wherein a ratio of the relative magnetic permeability of the second core to that of the first core is 1.1 or more and 12 or less. (Note: the ranges that inaba provide will allow for the ratio to be met)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a wherein a ratio of the relative magnetic permeability of the second core to that of the first core is 1.1 or more and 12 or less s taught by Inaba to the inductive device of Ono so that the overall loss of the magnetic element increases and the application frequency is low.
3 Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2011176253) (English translation) in view of Sakita (JP 2010027946)(English translation) and Lee et al. (US 20070159289) in further view of Matsumoto et al.(JP 2001274031)(English translation)
Regarding claim 13, the modified inducive of Ono discloses all limitations as noted above but does not expressly wherein disclose the width in the Y direction of each tip surface is larger than that of the facing surface and shorter than that of the middle core part.
Matsumoto (pages 3-12 and figures 1/12) discloses a teaching wherein disclose the width in the Y direction of each tip surface is larger than that of the facing surface and shorter than that of the middle core part.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design teaching wherein disclose the width in the Y direction of each tip surface is larger than that of the facing surface and shorter than that of the middle core part as taught by Matsumoto et al. to the inductive device of Ono so as to allow for improved characteristics of lower resistance losses, better heat dissipation, and improved low-frequency response
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 RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights