DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9 and 14 are amended
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Claim 1. line 7, typing error: “around a central axis” should be “around the central axis”.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya (US 20190006094 A1) view of Dien (US 20140167899 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Furiya teaches that a coil assembly comprising:
a mounting structure (30, Fig. 3; para 0036-0050) including the body sections are aligned and connected along a central axis (not labeled; i.e. center axis of element 30 in Fig. 1) of the mounting structure in a spaced position (construed from Fig. 3); and
a coil member (20) wound around a central axis (not labeled; i.e. center axis of element 30 in Fig. 1) of the mounting structure and secured to the body sections of the mounting structure.
Furiya does not teach that a plurality of body sections , each body section including a connecting member for engaging an adjacent one of the connecting
members of the body sections such that the plurality of body sections are aligned.
However, Dien teaches that a plurality of body sections (30a-30c, Fig. 1I; para 0056), each body section including a connecting member (31) for engaging an adjacent one of the connecting members of the body sections such that the plurality of body sections are aligned (see Fig. 1J).
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 a plurality of body sections , each body section including a connecting member for engaging an adjacent one of the connecting members of the body sections such that the plurality of body sections are aligned to provide a coil with high space factor and, moreover, to provide a flat coil with high space factor (see para 0009).
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Furiya teaches that each of the plurality of body sections includes defines a spiral groove (see Furiya’s para 0041) for receiving the coil member therein.
Regarding Claim 3:
As applied to claim 2, the modified Furiya teaches that the coil member is press-fit (inherently necessary for industrial application) into the spiral groove.
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Furiya teaches that the mounting structure defines a central opening (34a, see Furiya’s Fig. 5A; para 0041) and each of the body section includes an annular (I.e. ring shape surface; construed from see Furiya’s Fig. 5A) surface surrounding the central opening.
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Furiya teaches that wherein for each body section the connection member is provided on a periphery (construed from Dien’s Fig. 1I) of the body section
Regarding Claim 6:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Furiya teaches the plurality of body sections define a plurality of surfaces, the coil member being secured to the plurality of surfaces.
Regarding Claim 7:
As applied to claim 6, the modified Furiya teaches the coil member includes a plurality of coiled portions secured to the plurality of surfaces and disposed in different planes (see Dien’s Fig. 1J).
Regarding Claim 8:
As applied to claim 7, the modified Furiya teaches that the plurality of coiled portions each include a plurality of windings.
Regarding Claim 9:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Furiya teaches that connecting member of each body section is an integral part of the body section (see Dien’s Fig. 1J).
Regarding Claim 10:
As applied to claim 5, the modified Furiya teaches that the plurality of body sections each include an annular ring portion {or a truncated cone portion}
Regarding Claim 11:
As applied to claim 10, the modified Furiya teaches that the truncated cone portions are joined along the central axis of the mounting structure. (see Dien’s Fig. 1J).
Regarding Claim 13:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Furiya teaches the mounting structure is made of an insulating material (see Furiya’s para 0040), the coil member being electrically insulated by the mounting structure.
Regarding Claim 14:
Furiya teaches that a coil assembly comprising:
a mounting structure (30, Fig. 3; para 0036-0050) including a central axis (not labeled; i.e. center axis of element 30 in Fig. 1) of the mounting structure, a central
opening (34a), an annular surface around the central opening (i.e., ring shape surface in Fig. 5A around 34a), and a spiral groove (see para 0041) on the annular surface; and
a coil member (20) disposed in plane (31) and secured to the annular surfaces by pressing the coiled portions into the spiral grooves of the body sections.
Furiya does not teach a plurality of body sections aligned, the plurality of body sections each defining a central opening, a connecting member, wherein the connecting member is an integral part of each body section, a plurality of coiled portions disposed in different planes and the plurality of body sections by pressing the coiled portions into the spiral grooves of the body sections, wherein the plurality of body sections including the connecting members are formed in one manufacturing process.
However, Dien teaches that a plurality of body sections (30a-30c, Fig. 1I; para 0056) aligned, the plurality of body sections each defining a central opening (see Fig. Fig. 1J), a connecting member (31), wherein the connecting member is an integral part of each body section, a plurality of coiled portions disposed in different planes (construed from Fig. Fig. 1J).
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 a plurality of body sections aligned, the plurality of body sections each defining a central opening, a connecting member, wherein the connecting member is an integral part of each body section, a plurality of coiled portions disposed in different planes to provide a coil with high space factor and, moreover, to provide a flat coil with high space factor (see para 0009).
The process limitations “the plurality of body sections by pressing the coiled portions into the spiral grooves of the body sections, wherein the plurality of body sections including the connecting members are formed in one manufacturing process” in claim (14), do not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. MPEP 2113 states, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However this process limitation implied a structure i.e., a coil and connecting memeber which has been disclosed by modified Furiya. Therefore, this limitations are not patentable over modified Furiya.
Regarding Claim 15:
As applied to claim 14, the modified Furiya teaches that the plurality of body sections each have a ring plate configuration or a truncated cone configuration.
Regarding Claim 16:
As applied to claim 14, the modified Furiya teaches that the body sections are connected along the central axis of the mounting.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furiya view of Dien and further in view of Markus (US 20240223027 A1).
Regarding Claim 12:
As applied to claim 14, the modified Furiya teaches the coil member except coil member includes a tube body made of an electrically conducting material and a cooling channel in the tube body
However, Markus taught in para 0087 (see Fig. 1E and 10) that cooling channels 11 of the electrical conductors 10 of a first cooling channel group V1 are connected in parallel.
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 coil member includes a tube body made of an electrically conducting material and a cooling channel in the tube body to provide efficient cooling for the electrical component during normal operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference, and/or newly found prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
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 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kazi Hossain whose telephone number is 571-272-8182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (EST).
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 https:/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.
/KAZI HOSSAIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights