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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 11, line 20, “the first space in the vicinity of the first recesses” should read –the first space, in the vicinity of the first recess,--; in claim 12, line 7, “the second space in the vicinity of the first recesses” should read –the second space, in the vicinity of the second recess,--;. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US2011/0006870A1) in view of Klesyk (US2008/0036566A1) and Samata (US2014/0009252A1).
Sakamoto discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 2 and 5):
Claim 11. A coil device comprising:
a coil (2);
a
an exterior body (3) covering the coil and the columnar portion and made of an exterior material including magnetic particles and a resin (see [0061]); wherein
the core is provided with a recess (8) including a first recess (on columnar portion 1a; see Fig. 5(a)) and a second recess (on flange 1c);
the first recess extends between the first end and a second end of the columnar portion in the axial direction (see Fig. 5(a)); and
the second recess extends from an inner side towards an outer side of the flange (see Fig. 5(a);
Claim 2. The coil device according to claim 11, wherein the second recess is interconnected with the first recess at the first end of the columnar portion.
Claim 8. The coil device according to claim 11, wherein the coil comprises an air core coil. See Fig. 3(b).
Claim 9. The coil device according to claim 11,
Claim 12. The coil device according to claim 11, wherein
Sakamoto discloses the claimed invention, except the coil 2 is shown in cross-section only symbolically, without the particular shape if the individual conductor turns being visible. Sakamoto therefore does not disclose the limitations pertaining to the space between the wire and core, the filling of the space with the material such that an air gap is not formed in the space, and also does not disclose the average size of the magnetic particles relative to a width of the space.
However, when winding wire onto a core, it is known that gaps are created between the wire outer surface and the core. Samata, for example, discloses (see Fig. 1) an inductor comprising a core member 11, with coil 12 wound around the columnar portion 11a of the core member, the coil being a wound coated conductive wire having a diameter of 0.1 to 0.2 mm (see [0035]). See [0027] and [0028]. An exterior body covering the coil and the columnar portion is made of an exterior material 18 including resin and magnetic powder particles (see [0040]). The material 18 “not only covers the outer periphery of the coil 12, but it also smoothly enters the gaps between adjacent loops of the coil 12, gaps between the coil 12 and winding core 11a, gaps between the coil 12 and top flange 11b, and gaps between the coil 12 and bottom flange 11c, and so on, and consequently substantially all the gaps can be filled and sealed completely” (see [0078]).
Regarding the first/second space having a width/height smaller than an average size of the magnetic particles, as can be seen in the figure below, a space G1 a first space surrounded by an outer peripheral surface of the wire constituting the coil 12 and an outer peripheral surface of the columnar portion 11a is provided at a contact part between the outer peripheral surface of the columnar portion and an inner peripheral surface of the coil. The first space has a width which varies, depending on where the width is measured. For example, for a wire of 0.1 mm, i.e. 100 µm in diameter, the maximum width of the space G1 is about 50 µm, if measured along the dotted line. The largest particle (P) that can fit is 25 µm in diameter. If measured, however, at the dashed line, or even further up, closer to the contact point C between the columnar portion 11a and the coil 12, it can be seen that the width is much less, and even smaller particles would not fit. Samata discloses an average particle size between 2 and 30 µm, but further sets specific conditions (see [0045] to 0054]), among which is a first size distribution peak at about 22 µm diameter and a second peak at about 5 µm, and D90 of the particle size distribution is roughly 60 µm or less ([0061], [0062] and [0074]). Fig. 2 shows the particle size distribution.
Since Samata teaches an average particle size less than 30 µm, it can be seen that the space G1 has a width (such as close to point C) smaller than an average particle diameter of the magnetic particles even if the particles have an average diameter small enough to fit within the gap G1, particularly as “average diameter” means some particles are larger than average. A space G2 is also defined, surrounded by the outer peripheral surface of the wire and an surface of a flange 11c is provided at a contact part between the surface of the flange and the bottom surface of the coil. The second space has a height between the surface of the flange and the bottom surface of the coil smaller than an average size of the magnetic particles (following similar reasoning as for space G1). Further, as can be seen in Fig. 2, a subgroup of particles, have a diameter greater than 25 µm, this plurality of particles, thereby having an average diameter greater than even the 25 µm discussed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
711
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Whereas Sakamoto does not recite a specific wire diameter, and average magnetic particle diameter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the coil 2 of Sakamoto using 0.1 mm diameter wire, and to form the exterior body with an exterior material 18 as taught by Samata, as a simple matter of selecting among conventional wire sizes and conventional exterior materials, with predictable results.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, at least for some particle diameters smaller than 30 µm average diameter range, the average particle diameter is larger than a width of the space G1, while the space is still filled with the material 18. Similarly for space G2 and claim 12.
Sakamoto also discloses the core is a drum type core, not a T type core.
Klesyk discloses a coil device comprising a coil (22), a T-shaped core (20) including a columnar portion (20a) around which the coil is disposed and a flange (20b) formed at a first end of the columnar portion in an axial direction thereof, and an exterior body (28) covering the coil and the columnar portion and made of an exterior material including magnetic particles and a resin (see [0043]). Klesyk also mentions other suitable core shapes, including drum type (see [0036]).
In view of the combined teachings of Sakamoto and Klesyk, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the process of Sakamoto, using a T shaped core instead of a drum type core, as a matter of selecting among conventional core shapes, with predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that T-shaped core would be obtained by modifying the manufacturing process of Fig. 4 of Sakamoto to form a core having only one flange and a columnar portion.
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto discloses:
[0051] At that time, it is also allowed for the compound material to be adjusted such that line expansion coefficient of the compound material constituting the filling member 3 and line expansion coefficient of the compound material constituting the core 1 will become equal. Thus, the line expansion coefficients of the compound material of the filling member 3 and the compound material of the core 1 are made to be approached each other in which it is possible to approximate deformation ratio of the filling member 3 with respect to disturbance of heat or the like and deformation ratio of the core 1, and it is possible to prevent the flange portions 1b, 1c of the core 1 from being damaged based on a phenomenon that the filling member 3 filled in the receiving portion 7 is deformed.
From this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the thermal expansion coefficient of the core and exterior body should be as close as possible, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that suitable properties can be obtained even if the thermal expansion coefficient of the exterior body is slightly larger than that of the core.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights