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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the irregularities on a surface of the first region and irregularities on a surface of the second region must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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 1, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the first surface and the second surface intended by “a first region with a surface property following that the second surface” or “a contact region in contact the second surface without having the surface property following that of the second surface”. The phrase “a/the surface property following” throughout the claim is unclear as to what applicant is trying to claim. The first region, the contact region of the first surface, the second region and the contact region of the second surface arrangement are unclear. Applicant also clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the first and second surfaces intended by “the first and second regions being in contact with each other with irregularities on a surface of the first region and irregularities on a surface of the second region fit.” The “irregularities” of the first and second surfaces/regions is/are unclear. Applicant should clarify. Claims 2-10 inherit the defects of the parent claim.
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) 1-7 and 9-10, 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 Hiroo et al. [JP 2013-093921 A] in view of JPS46-002729.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Hiroo et al. discloses a reactor [figures 1-4, 6A-8, 10-12 and 14-15] for a power converter [figure 13], comprising:
a coil [16, 18]: and
a magnetic core, the magnetic core having:
a first surface made of a material mainly containing a magnetic material; and
a second surface made of a material mainly containing a magnetic material, the first and second surfaces facing each other [gap G in figure 14].
Hiroo et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific of the first and second surfaces of the magnetic core.
Hiroo et al. further discloses two coils [16, 18] arranged in parallel in axial direction relative to the core.
JPS46-002729 discloses a magnetic device comprising:
- two E-shaped cores having at least one gap formed therebetween [figures 1-2]; and
- at least one coil [5], wherein the at least one gap including regions and surfaces arranged between the cores with or without contact surfaces [projection 7 in figures 1-2].
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 gap design of JPS46-002729 in Hiroo et al. for the purpose of improving leakage and/or adjusting impedances.
The specific “irregularities” of the surfaces [contact or non-contact] would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose for facilitating different gaps arrangement and improving leakage.
Regarding claim 2, JPS46-002729 further discloses a non-contact region [gap] arranged apart from other surface of the gap.
Regarding claims 3-4, the specific “tubular” winding use for the coil would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating manufacturing and/or assembling [note, Hiroo et al. discloses the coils 16, 18 arranged axially around core legs of the E-shaped cores]. Hiroo et al. also discloses the use of two U-shaped cores [figure 10].
Regarding claim 5, Hiroo et al. discloses more than one gaps [multiple surfaces between core pieces].
The specific gaps arrangement between core pieces would have been an
Regarding claim 6, Hiroo et al. discloses the use of different magnetic material of the core pieces such as dust core [magnetic powder], AMCC core [amorphous iron core] [14, 70, 72, figure 8].
The specific material use for the magnetic core pieces would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating different magnetic flux/field.
Regarding claim 7, the specific “tubular” winding use for the coil would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating manufacturing and/or assembling [note, Hirro et al. discloses the coils 16, 18 arranged axially around core legs of the E-shaped cores]. Hiroo et al. discloses the use of three or more core pieces [figures 1-4, 6A-8, 10-12 and 15].
Regarding claim 10, the specific use of the converter in a power conversion device would have been obvious design consideration for the purpose of intended use in different environments.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroo et al. in view of JPS46-002729 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuhiro et al. [JP 2013-157352 A]
Hiroo et al. in view of JPS46-002729 disclose the instant claimed invention except for a molded resin portion.
Yasuhiro et al. discloses a core for a reactor [figure 1], wherein the core having molded resin portion [60a, 60b] at least partially covering the core [portions 30].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to cover the core of Hiroo et al., as suggested by Yasuhiro et al. for the purpose of improving insulation.
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
Prosecution Insights