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The objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn subsequent Applicant’s amendment of 07/07/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-14 and 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, Applicant asserts that the disclosure of Meguro fails to teach or disclose at least “wherein the common mode choke exhibits an improvement in reflection during mode conversion”. (Emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A prima facie case is disclosed in disclosure of Meguro since Meguro teaches the limitation of at least “wherein the common mode choke exhibits an improvement in reflection during mode conversion” since the limitation is merely a statement of intended benefit. The remaining features of claim 1, remain anticipated by Meguro.
Thus, the limitations are met using the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the disclosure of Meguro sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the claims.
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 1-11, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meguro et al. (hereinafter Meguro), Japanese Patent JP2009277802A.
Regarding Claim 1, Meguro teaches, a common mode choke (Fig. 9), comprising
a first coil (41a) with a winding from a first (T1, Fig.4), a second (T2, Fig. 4) to an n-th turn (TF),
wherein a coupling between the first turn (T1) and the second turn (T2) is different from a coupling between the second turn and the n-th turn (TF),
and wherein n is a number 2,
wherein the common mode choke exhibits an improvement in reflection during mode conversion (statements of intended use and all other functional statements have been carefully considered but deemed not to impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the Referenced device which is capable of being used as claimed if one desired to do so) (MPEP 2112). (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 2, Meguro further teaches, comprising a second coil (41b) having a winding with a first, a second ... and an n-th turn. (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 3 and similarly claims 4 and 5, Meguro further teaches, wherein a coupling between the first turn and the second turn of the second coil is different from a coupling between the second turn and the n-th turn of the second coil. (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 6, Meguro further teaches, wherein the first turn, the second turn and the n-th turn have different lengths. (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 7 and similarly claims 8 and 9, Meguro further teaches, wherein the first coil comprises a magnetic core (“magnetic core 104” [0046]) around which the winding of the first coil is wound. (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0046]).
Regarding Claim 10, Meguro further teaches, wherein the magnetic core of the first coil and/or the winding of the first coil is conical or trapezoidal in shape. (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 11, Meguro further teaches, comprising a second coil (41b) formed symmetrically or anti-symmetrically with respect to the first coil (41a). (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 14, Meguro further teaches, comprising four terminals (“fixed to a tangle terminal (not shown) provided on the winding core 10” [0030]) for interconnection with an external circuit environment, wherein the common mode choke is configured as an SMD component (Fig. 9, Fig. 13 comprise SMD components). (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 17 and similarly claims 18-20, Meguro further teaches, wherein a last winding section is a half or quarter winding ((TF), Fig. 9). (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro, as applied to claim 1, in view of Sakamoto et al. (hereinafter Sakamoto), U.S. Patent 5,878,132.
Regarding Claim 12, Meguro is silent on the material of the conductive wire. (Meguro: Figs. 1, 4-13, machine translation, para. [0022], [0044], [0045], [0057]).
Meguro does not explicitly teach, wherein windings are made of a material selected from copper or an alloy with copper as main component, silver or an alloy with silver as main component.
However, Sakamoto (Fig. 7) teaches, wherein windings are made of a material selected from copper (“[t]he conductor may be copper”) or an alloy with copper as main component, silver or an alloy with silver as main component. (Sakamoto: Fig. 7, col. 5, lines 10-11).
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 conductive wire of Meguro to include the copper wire of Sakamoto, the motivation being it is obvious to try since a finite group exist of economical conductor material. Therefore, the limitations of Claim 12 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Meguro in view of Sakamoto further teaches, wherein coil cores consist of a material selected from - a magnetic material, Ferrite (“ferrite”; col. 2, lines 5-6), MnZn, NiZn, iron powder, an organic material enriched with a magnetic material, and - a material comprising one of these materials as a major constituent, the motivation being “a chosen low dielectric-constant material which preferably has the dielectric constant K is ten (10) or less” (col. 2, 4-7). (Sakamoto: Fig. 7, col. 2, lines 4-7).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogawa et al. (JP H10172832 A) and Sato (JP 2004047942 A).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights