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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species 5, Figure 3A in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1-8 read on the elected Figure 3A and Figures 4A-4B depict similar inductor structure with Figure 3A and method claims is not different invention compare to claims 1-8. This is not found persuasive because inductor structure of Figures 4A-4B is different from the inductor structure of Figure 3A, claims 5-6 do not read on Figure 3A, method claims require further search and/or consideration in other areas, class/subclass. Claims 1-4 and 7-8 will be examined herewith.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-4 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 “a current limiting circuit” intended by “a current limiting circuit electrically coupled to the negative inductor and configured to supply an electric current of magnitude within a range, the range defined bey a first local minimum and a second local minimum of current-energy curve of the ferromagnetic material.” It is unclear how the “range” defined. What is/are the local minimum of a current energy curve of the ferromagnetic material? Applicant should clarify. Claims 2-4 inherit the defects of the parent claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uchikoba [US 6,106,893].
Regarding claim 8, Uchikoba discloses an inductor [figures 1-3], comprising: a ferromagnetic material [1]; and a conductive material [3] arranged inside the ferromagnetic material.
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.
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) 1-4, 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 Shogo et al. [JP 2016-225590 A] in view of Uchikoba [US 6,106,893].
Regarding claim 1, Shogo et al. inductor device [figure 1] for a current limiting circuit, comprising:
- an inductor [1] comprising a magnetic material [2] and a conductive [3] material arranged inside the ferromagnetic material; and
- a current limiting circuit electrically coupled to the inductor and configured to supply an electric current of magnitude to the inductor device.
Shogo et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the use of ferromagnetic material and the specific the range defined by a first local minimum and a second local minimum of a current-energy curve of the ferromagnetic material.
Uchikoba discloses an inductor element [figures 1-3] comprising:
- a core [1] formed of a ferromagnetic material; and
- a conductor [2] arranged inside the core.
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 ferromagnetic material for the magnetic core of Shogo et al., as suggested by Uchikoba, for the purpose of noise suppression [abstract and summary of the invention].
The inductor structure of Shogo et al. in view of Uchikoba would exhibit/supply the electric current of magnitude within a ranged defined by a first local minimum and a second local minimum of a current-energy curve of the ferromagnetic material.
Regarding claim 2, both Shogo et al. and Uchikoba discloses first and second terminals electrically connected to first and second ends of the conductive material provided for external and/or internal connections [3-4 of figures 1-3 in Uchikoba].
Regarding claim 3, Uchikoba discloses the ferromagnetic material has a first shape, the conductive material has a second shape, and the first shape of the ferromagnetic material encloses the second shape of the conductive material such that a geometrical center of the first shape coincides with a geometrical center of the second shape [figures 1-3].
Regarding claim 4, Shogo et al. discloses different shapes between the first shape and the second shape. Uchikoba discloses each of the first shape and the second shape are symmetrical shapes.
The specific symmetrical shapes would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating manufacturing and/or assembling.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishino et al. [US 4,146,854] or in view of Uchikoba.
Regarding claim 7, Ishino et al. discloses an inductive device [figure 2] comprising:
- a magnetic core [3]; and
- a conductor [2] partly enclosed in the magnetic core such that opposite ends of the conductor are protruded from the magnetic core [figure 2].
Ishino et al. discloses the ends of the conductor could be used as terminals for external connection of the inductor device.
Ishino et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the use of ferromagnetic material for the magnetic core.
Uchikoba discloses an inductor element [figures 1-3] comprising:
- a core [1] formed of a ferromagnetic material; and
- a conductor [2] arranged inside the core.
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 ferromagnetic material for the magnetic core of Shogo et al., as suggested by Uchikoba, for the purpose of noise suppression [abstract and summary of the invention].
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