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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 03/08/2023 and 03/21/2023 have been considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claim 17 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 recites, inter alia, “…wherein said filling layer is produced by pressing and sintering a soft magnetic powder composite material. (Emphasis added).
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 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruenkmans et al. (hereinafter Bruenkmans), German Patent DE102007054917A1.
Regarding Claim 11, Bruenkmans teaches, a transformer (Fig. 14), comprising:
a magnetic core (41);
a coil (42, 43) extending around a core section (41.1) of said magnetic core; and
a filling layer (44, 45) formed of a magnetizable material (“a matrix 44 or 45 of magnetically conductive material” [0035]) arranged between said core section and said coil. (Bruenkmans: Fig. 14, machine translation, para. [0006]-[0009], [0035], [0039]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bruenkmans further teaches, wherein said core section and said coil are disposed to form a gap (gap filled with matrix 44, 45) therebetween, and said filling layer completely fills said gap between said core section and said coil. (Bruenkmans: Fig. 14, machine translation, para. [0035]).
Regarding Claim 13 and similarly claims 14 and 15, Bruenkmans further teaches, wherein said filling layer is made of a paramagnetic material (“a matrix 44 or 45 of magnetically conductive material” [0035], “such as iron powder” [0007]). (Bruenkmans: Fig. 14, machine translation, para. [0007], [0035]).
Regarding Claim 16, Bruenkmans further teaches, wherein said filling layer is made of a soft magnetic composite material (“a matrix 44 or 45 of magnetically conductive material” [0035], “such as iron powder” [0007], and “the magnetically conductive potting compound” [0008] comprises “a soft magnetic composite material”). (Bruenkmans: Fig. 14, machine translation, para. [0007], [0008], [0035]).
Regarding Claim 18, Bruenkmans further teaches, wherein said filling layer has an outer surface distal from said core section, and said outer surface has a shape of a cylinder (Fig. 14 comprises a matrix 44, 45 with the shape of a cylinder) with a smooth trajectory (“a matrix 44 or 45 of magnetically conductive material” [0035]). (Bruenkmans: Fig. 14, machine translation, para. [0035]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruenkmans, as applied to claim 18, in view of Parashar et al. (hereinafter Parashar), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0002392.
Regarding Claim 19 and similarly claim 20, Bruenkmans is silent on including an outer surface having a shape wherein said trajectory is oval. (Bruenkmans: Fig. 14, machine translation, para. [0006]-[0009], [0035], [0039]).
Bruenkmans does not explicitly teach, wherein said trajectory is oval.
However, Parashar (Fig. 1) teaches, “allows the manufacture of magnetic cores having different shapes” [0009]. (Parashar: Figs. 1-4, para. [0007]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the magnetic core of Bruenkmans to include the shape wherein said trajectory is oval, the motivation being “to provide a magnetic core in which the power losses resulting from the creation of eddy currents in the magnetic core are reduced” [0010]. (Parashar: Figs. 1-4, para. [0010]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 19 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Bruenkmans in view of Parashar further teaches, wherein said magnetic core is formed of a plurality of electrical sheets (16) (“magnetic core layers 16 may be made from iron, steel or other magnetic material” [0044]), the motivation being “to constrain and guide the magnetic field” [0007]. (Parashar: Figs. 1-4, para. [0007], [0044]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanov (EP3001435A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM BARNES whose telephone number is (408)918-7512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (PST).
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 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.
/MALCOLM BARNES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
1/5/2026