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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
While not conceding to the argument filed on 04/30/2026, MacLennan (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0051473 A1) is applied in this Office action merely to strengthen the Office’s position on patentability.
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 factual inquiries 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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs et al. (EP 2704167 A1, hereinafter “Kovacs”) in view of MacLennan (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0051473 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kovacs et al., hereinafter referred to as “Kovacs,” teaches a magnetic device applied to a filter (“chokes” para. [0002]) (FIG 16), comprising:
a magnetic core 2 comprising an annular main body (see FIG 6 for annular main body) and a hollow portion (central opening); and
a winding assembly comprising at least one winding (winding around sectors 12, 13 and or 15), each of the at least one winding comprising a coil (coil formed withing each sectors) with a plurality of turns, each turn of the coil penetrating through the hollow portion and disposed around the annular main body, wherein coil (coil formed withing the sectors 12, 13 and or 15) of the at least two windings are disposed around the annular main body to form at least three winding regions 10, 11 and 14, each of the at least three winding regions except the winding region which is last formed has at least three winding layers stacked up one by one, and the number of the winding layers of each of the at least three winding regions except the winding region which is last formed is odd and greater than or equal to three (paras. [0002] and [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
201
251
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kovacs does not expressly teach
a winding assembly comprising at least two windings,
wherein the at least two windings comprise two wires wrapped around each other and disposed around the annular main body.
MacLennan teaches a magnetic device applied to a filter 120 (FIGs. 4A and 4B), and comprising:
a winding assembly 212 comprising at least two windings (windings formed by wires 216 and 217),
wherein the at least two windings comprise two wires 216 and 217 wrapped around each other and disposed around the annular main body 210 (para. [0036]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the two wires wrapping around each other as taught by MacLennan to the magnetic device applied to a filter of Kovacs to provide the required filtering characteristics with minimized voltage between the two wires (para. [0036]).
With respect to claim 2, Kovacs in view of MacLennan teaches the magnetic device according to claim 1, wherein winding directions of two adjacent winding layers of the at least three winding regions in any of the winding regions (regions 12 and 13) except the winding region 15 which is last formed along the annular main body are opposite to each other, and a first winding direction (right direction) of winding layer (first layer from magnetic core 2) of the at least three winding layers closest to the annular main body in any of the winding regions except the winding region which is last formed is the same with a second winding direction (right direction) of the winding layer (third layer from magnetic core 2) most away from the annular main body in the same winding region (Kovacs, para. [0022], MacLennan, para. [0036]).
With respect to claim 3, Kovacs in view of MacLennan teaches the magnetic device according to claim 2, wherein the winding region 15 which is last formed has at least one winding layer (three layers), the number of the winding layer in the winding region which is last formed is odd (three is odd number), and a third winding direction (right direction) of the winding layer (third layer from magnetic core 2) most away from the annular main body in the winding region which is last formed is the same with the second winding direction of the winding layer most away from the annular main body in any of the winding regions 12 and or 13 except the winding region which is last formed (Kovacs, para. [0022]).
With respect to claim 4, Kovacs in view of MacLennan teaches the magnetic device according to claim 2. Kovacs in view of MacLennan wherein the winding region which is last formed has at least two winding layers, the number of the winding layers in the winding region which is last formed is even, and a fourth winding direction of the winding layer most away from the annular main body in the winding region which is last formed is opposite to the second winding direction of the winding layer most away from the annular main body in any of the winding regions except the winding region which is last formed. However, Kovacs expressly discloses any number of layers could be made until a “desired number turns is reached” (para. [0003]). Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make even number of turns to the last winding region to get a desired electrical characteristics. Accordingly, 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 an even number of layers for the last winding region to provide the desired inductance to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 5, Kovacs in view of MacLennan teaches the magnetic device according to claim 1, wherein the winding layers in any of the at least three winding regions comprises a first winding layer (first layer from magnetic core 2), a second winding layer (second layer from magnetic core 2) and a third winding layer (third layer from magnetic core 2), wherein the first winding layer is closest to the annular main body, the third winding layer is most away from the annular main body, and the second winding layer is stacked between the first winding layer and the third winding layer, wherein a winding direction of the first winding layer along the annular main body is the same with a winding direction of the third winding layer along the annular main body, and a winding direction of the second winding layer along the annular main body is opposite to the winding direction of the first winding layer along the annular main body (Kovacs, para. [0022]).
With respect to claim 6, Kovacs in view of MacLennan teaches the magnetic device according to claim 1, wherein the winding regions comprises a first winding region 12, a second winding region 13 and a third winding region 15, wherein the first winding region, the second winding region and the third region are disposed around the annular main body of the magnetic core in sequence, wherein the winding layer (third layer from magnetic core 2) most away from the annular main body in the first winding region is connected with the winding layer (first layer from magnetic core 2) closest to the annular main body in the second winding region, and the winding layer most away from the annular main body in the second winding region is connected with the winding layer closest to the annular main body in the third winding region (Kovacs, para. [0022]).
With respect to claim 7, Kovacs in view of MacLennan teaches the magnetic device according to claim 1, wherein the withstand voltage of the at least two windings are greater than 1.5 kV (Kovacs, para. [0003], MacLennan, para. [0036]). Kovacs in view of Suzuki teaches the magnetic core as claimed. Therefore, the two windings of the magnetic device of Kovacs in view of Suzuki would be able to stand 1.5kV.
With respect to claim 10, Kovacs in view of MacLennan teaches the magnetic device according to claim 1, wherein the at least two windings are fully insulated wires (MacLennan, claim 23).
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 PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights