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 .
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 8-13 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whipple (US 2,865,086) in view of Clemons (US 1,897,604) and Shigeta et al. (US 4,621,248).
Regarding claim 8, Whipple (figures 1-2 and Col 2, lines 1-65) discloses a pair of core pieces (3), wherein each of the core pieces comprises an arc-shaped core segment having end faces (see figures 1-2), an insulating coating (4) to cover the core segment and provide the core segment with an electrical insulation (see claim 2), a insulating coating (4) having flanges (6) extending outward from each of the end faces of the core segment (see figures 1-2), a wire (9) wound around the molded insulating coating, and terminals (12,13) disposed near the flanges and electrically connected to the wire. Whipple also discloses a wire (9) is wound around the circumference of the insulating coating (4), in parallel without being twisted to each other.(see figures 1-2 and claim 2)
Whipple does not expressly disclose a molded insulating coating covers the core segment and a coated wire is wound around the molded insulating coating.
Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses teaching wherein a molded insulating coating (4) to cover the core segment and a coated wire (16) is wound around the molded insulating coating. (see figures 2-4)
Whipple (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the inductive device has a toroidal shape formed by placing the end faces of the arc-shaped core segment of one of the core pieces to face the end faces of the arc-shaped core segment of the other core piece, but does not expressly disclose wherein the inductive device is a choke coil.
Shigeta et al. (figure 1 and Col 4, lines 20-22) is a toroidal shape formed by placing the end faces of the arc-shaped core segment of one of the core pieces to face the end faces of the arc-shaped core segment of the other core piece is a choke coil.
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 a molded insulating coating covers the core segment and a coated wire is wound around the molded insulating coating as taught by Clemons to the inductive device of Whipple so as to improve electrical insulation thereby reducing the chances of a short circuit occurring while also allowing the inductive to have improved mechanical strength to resist wire tension.
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 a toroidal shape formed by placing the end faces of the arc-shaped core segment of one of the core pieces to face the end faces of the arc-shaped core segment of the other core piece as taught by Shigeta et al. to the inductive device of Whipple so as to allow the inductive device the capability to reduce EMI/noise while also consume very little power thereby generating significantly less heat, making them ideal for high-current applications.
Regarding claim 9, Clemons (figures 3-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses wherein the coated wire is wound in layers along a peripheral surface of the molded insulating coating, wherein a first layer of one coated wire is present on the inner most circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, and a second layer of one coated layer is stacked on the outer circumference of the first layer in sequence.
Regarding claim 10, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching of a coated wire 16. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”..coated wire is wound while changing the direction of winding at the terminals…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 11, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching of a coated wire 16. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”..coated wire is wound while changing the direction of winding at the terminals…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching wherein the coated wire comprises a plural coated wires. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”..coated wire is wound while changing the direction of winding at the terminals…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 13, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching wherein the coated wire comprises a plural coated wires. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”..coated wire is wound while changing the direction of winding at the terminals…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 18, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching wherein the terminals are electrically connected to the coated wire. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”.. via resistance welding, welding method, or soldering.…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 19, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching wherein the terminals are electrically connected to the coated wire. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”.. via resistance welding, welding method, or soldering.…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 20, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching wherein the terminals are electrically connected to the coated wire. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”.. via resistance welding, welding method, or soldering.…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 21, Clemons (figures 1-4 and Col 2, lines 55-95) discloses a teaching wherein the terminals are electrically connected to the coated wire. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ”.. via resistance welding, welding method, or soldering.…”has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
2. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whipple (US 2,865,086) in view of Clemons (US 1,897,604) and Shigeta et al. (US 4,621,248) in further view of White (US 9,196,416).
Regarding claim 14, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
White (figures 1-7) discloses a teaching wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
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 on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to maximize the amount of conductor material in a given volume; thereby leading to increased efficiency and higher power density. Also, it would have been obvious design choice to design wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges so as to facilitate more effective heat dissipation and reducing the risk of hotspots and insulation breakdown while also improving structural integrity sine the coil is well-packed, making it more mechanically stable and better able to withstand external vibrations, mechanical stress, and internal electromagnetic forces, especially during short-circuit events.
Regarding claim 15, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
White (figures 1-7) discloses a teaching wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
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 on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to maximize the amount of conductor material in a given volume; thereby leading to increased efficiency and higher power density. Also, it would have been obvious design choice to design wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges so as to facilitate more effective heat dissipation and reducing the risk of hotspots and insulation breakdown while also improving structural integrity sine the coil is well-packed, making it more mechanically stable and better able to withstand external vibrations, mechanical stress, and internal electromagnetic forces, especially during short-circuit events.
Regarding claim 16, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
White (figures 1-7) discloses a teaching wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
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 on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to maximize the amount of conductor material in a given volume; thereby leading to increased efficiency and higher power density. Also, it would have been obvious design choice to design wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges so as to facilitate more effective heat dissipation and reducing the risk of hotspots and insulation breakdown while also improving structural integrity sine the coil is well-packed, making it more mechanically stable and better able to withstand external vibrations, mechanical stress, and internal electromagnetic forces, especially during short-circuit events.
Regarding claim 17, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
White (figures 1-7) discloses a teaching wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges.
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 on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to maximize the amount of conductor material in a given volume; thereby leading to increased efficiency and higher power density. Also, it would have been obvious design choice to design wherein on the inner circumferential side of the molded insulating coating, the central region of the wound- wire bulges so as to facilitate more effective heat dissipation and reducing the risk of hotspots and insulation breakdown while also improving structural integrity sine the coil is well-packed, making it more mechanically stable and better able to withstand external vibrations, mechanical stress, and internal electromagnetic forces, especially during short-circuit events.
3. Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whipple (US 2,865,086) in view of Clemons (US 1,897,604) and Shigeta et al. (US 4,621,248) in further view of Sundstrom et al. (US 8,203,410).
Regarding claim 22, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin.
Sundstrom et al. (figures 1-5 and Col 10, lines 1-65) discloses a teaching the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin (14/30).
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 outer circumference thereof is coated resin as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to so as to improve electrical insulation thereby reducing the chances of a short circuit occurring while also allowing the inductive to have improved mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 23, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin.
Sundstrom et al. (figures 1-5 and Col 10, lines 1-65) discloses a teaching the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin (14/30).
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 outer circumference thereof is coated resin as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to so as to improve electrical insulation thereby reducing the chances of a short circuit occurring while also allowing the inductive to have improved mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 24, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin.
Sundstrom et al. (figures 1-5 and Col 10, lines 1-65) discloses a teaching the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin (14/30).
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 outer circumference thereof is coated resin as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to so as to improve electrical insulation thereby reducing the chances of a short circuit occurring while also allowing the inductive to have improved mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 25, the modified inductive device of Whipple discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin.
Sundstrom et al. (figures 1-5 and Col 10, lines 1-65) discloses a teaching the outer circumference thereof is coated with resin (14/30).
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 outer circumference thereof is coated resin as taught by White to the modified inductive device of Whipple so as to so as to improve electrical insulation thereby reducing the chances of a short circuit occurring while also allowing the inductive to have improved mechanical strength.
Conclusion
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