Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/033,014

MAGNETIC ELEMENT AND IMAGE OUTPUT DEVICE COMPRISING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 20, 2023
Examiner
HOSSAIN, KAZI S
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Innotek Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
485 granted / 610 resolved
+11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
644
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
66.6%
+26.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 610 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 11-12, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (US 20130135073 A1). Regarding Claim 11: Maeda teaches that a magnetic element, comprising: a first core (12a, Fig. 2; para 0022-0036); a second (12b) core disposed on the first core; a bobbin (40,50) comprising a through-hole (44a) formed in a center portion (44) thereof, the bobbin being at least partially disposed between the first core and the second core (construed from Fig. 3); and a first coil unit (20, Fig. 3) and a second coil unit (30, Fig. 3) at least partially disposed on the bobbin, wherein at least one of the first coil unit or the second coil unit comprises a plurality of conductive wires (construed from Fig. 3) disposed around the through-hole, each of the plurality of conductive wires comprising a first end portion (20a) and a second end portion, wherein the bobbin comprises: a first portion (52) formed to allow the first end portion and the second end portion of each of the plurality of conductive wires to be disposed thereon; and a second portion (58) formed opposite the first portion in a horizontal direction, with the through-hole interposed therebetween, and wherein portions of the plurality of conductive wires overlap each other vertically on the second portion (construed from Fig. 3). Regarding Claim 12: As applied to claim 11, Maeda teaches that the first coil unit and the second coil unit overlap each other in one direction (i.e. horizontal direction in Fig. 3). Regarding Claim 19: As applied to claim 11, Maeda teaches that the plurality of conductive wires includes a first conductive wire (not labeled; the most inner part of coil 20 in Fig. 3), a second conductive wire (not labeled; the second most inner part of coil 20 in Fig. 3), a third conductive wire (i.e. the third most inner part of coil 20 in Fig. 3), and a fourth conductive wire (outer coil part 20 in Fig. 3) disposed around the through-hole, each of the first to fourth conductive wires including the first end portion and the second end portion (not labeled; it is inherently necessary that each coil has start portion and end portion). Regarding Claim 20: As applied to claim 19, Maeda teaches that a portion of the third conductive wire overlaps a portion of the fourth conductive wire vertically (construed from Fig. 3). Regarding Claim 21: As applied to claim 19, Maeda teaches that the first conductive wire includes another portion overlapping another portion of the fourth conductive wire vertically, and wherein a portion of the first conductive wire and another portion of the first conductive wire are disposed at different positions from each other (construed from Fig. 3). Regarding Claim 22: As applied to claim 20, Maeda teaches that the second conductive wire includes another portion overlapping another portion of the third conductive wire vertically, and wherein a portion of the second conductive wire and another portion of the second conductive wire are disposed at different positions from each other (construed from Fig. 3). 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 of this title, 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. Claims 18 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Regarding Claim 18: As applied to claim 11, Maeda teaches wherein the plurality of conductive wires of the first coil unit includes a first conductive wire (the most inner part of coil 20 in Fig. 3) and a second conductive (the second most inner part of coil 20 in Fig. 3) except wherein the second coil unit includes a metal plate However, such features are well-known and the Examiner takes Official Notice (see MPEP § 2144.03.A) that and wherein the second coil unit includes a metal plate It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of what is well known into Maeda to have the second coil unit includes a metal plate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the Maeda in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of utilizing known structures to ensure successful device operation. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Park (US 20120002387 A1). Regarding Claim 30: Maeda teaches that a magnetic element (12a. 12b), wherein the magnetic element includes: a first core (12a, Fig. 2; para 0022-0036); a second (12b) core disposed on the first core; a bobbin (40,50) comprising a through-hole (44a) formed in a center portion (44) thereof, the bobbin being at least partially disposed between the first core and the second core (construed from Fig. 3); and a first coil unit (20, Fig. 3) and a second coil unit (30, Fig. 3) at least partially disposed on the bobbin, wherein at least one of the first coil unit or the second coil unit comprises a plurality of conductive wires (construed from Fig. 3) disposed around the through-hole, each of the plurality of conductive wires comprising a first end portion (20a) and a second end portion, wherein the bobbin comprises: a first portion (52) formed to allow the first end portion and the second end portion of each of the plurality of conductive wires to be disposed thereon; and a second portion (58) formed opposite the first portion in a horizontal direction, with the through-hole interposed therebetween, and wherein portions of the plurality of conductive wires overlap each other vertically on the second portion (construed from Fig. 3). Maeda does not teach that a board; and a magnetic element disposed on the board. However, Park teaches that a board (6. Fig. 3; para 0173); and a magnetic element (40) disposed on the board. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a board; and a magnetic element disposed on the board to provides a transformer having a structure in which individual bobbins may easily be coupled to each other such that automatic production thereof is easily performed (para 0014). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-17, and 23-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 13 recites, the first portion of the bobbin is disposed on one side thereof in a first direction, which is one among the horizontal direction on the basis of the through-hole, wherein the second portion of the bobbin is disposed on another side thereof, the another side being opposite the first portion on the basis of the through-hole, wherein the plurality of conductive wires includes a first conductive wire and a second conductive wire, at least a portion of the first conductive wire and at least a portion of the second conductive wire overlap each other on the second portion, and wherein the bobbin has an opening formed in the second portion to expose at least a part of a portion in which the plurality of conductive wires overlaps. Claim 17 recites, wherein the bobbin comprises: a plurality of terminal pins disposed on the first portion to allow two different first and second end portions of each of the plurality of conductive wires to be connected thereto; and a plurality of short-circuiting portions configured to short-circuit at least one pair of the plurality of terminal pins with each other, and wherein one of the plurality of short-circuiting portions short-circuits at least two pairs of terminal pins with each other Claim 23 recites, the first end portion of the third conductive wire, the first end portion of the first conductive wire, the first end portion of the fourth conductive wire, the first end portion of the second conductive wire, the second end portion of the first conductive wire, the second end portion of the third conductive wire, the second end portion of the second conductive wire, and the second end portion of the fourth conductive wire are disposed parallel to each other on the first portion. The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitations. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” , Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kazi Hossain whose telephone number is 571-272-8182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (EST). 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 https:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached on 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. /KAZI HOSSAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2837 /SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 20, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603220
COIL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597548
INDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586699
COIL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586706
COIL COMPONENT AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580118
MULTI-LAYER INDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 610 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