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 .
It is noted that:
Claim 1 is amended
Claim 37 is new
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 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20120306282 A1) in view of Ito (US 5656983 A) in view of Nakajima (US 20110095856 A1) and further in view of Ishida (US 20170352475 A1)
Regarding Claim 1:
Tan teaches that a wireless power transfer device (500, Fig. 5A) comprising:
a first transmitting coil (not labeled; i.e. the coil that wound around element 302 in Fig. 5A; para 0043) oriented along a first axis (not labeled; i.e. horizontal direction in Fig. 5A) and comprising a first ferrite rod (302);
a second transmitting coil (not labeled; i.e. the coil that wound around element 304 in Fig. 5A; para 0043) on the first transmitting coil, oriented along a second axis ; (i.e. vertical direction in Fig. 5A) different from the first axis, and comprising a second ferrite rod (304); and
Tan does not teach that a nonmagnetic layer magnetically decoupling the first ferrite rod from the second ferrite rod in an area of overlap between the first and second ferrite rods, the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing.
However, Ito teaches that a nonmagnetic layer (72, Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 15-20) magnetically decoupling the first ferrite rod (1, Fig. 7; col. 3, lines 50-55) from the second ferrite rod (3) in an area of overlap between the first and second ferrite rods.
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 nonmagnetic layer magnetically decoupling the first ferrite rod from the second ferrite rod in an area of overlap between the first and second ferrite rod to reduce the core loss that is caused by high frequency operation of the inductive coupler (col. 1, lines 40-50).
The modified Tan does not teach that a nonmagnetic layer directly contacting the first ferrite rod.
However, the limitations “directly contacting” is very well known in industry as disclosed by Nakajima that shows a nonmagnetic layer (4, Fig. 1) directly contacting magnetic layer 3 (see Abstract, para 0039).
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 nonmagnetic layer directly contacting the first ferrite rod to provide a multi layer choke coil which has a favorable direct current overlay characteristic, has little change of characteristic due to temperature, and can be stably produced (para 0025).
The modified Tan does not teach that the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing.
The process limitations “the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing” in claim (1), 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 ferrite rod layer which has been disclosed by modified Tan (element 302-304 in fig. 5A). Therefore, this limitations are not patentable over Tan.
Furthermore, the process limitation are well known in industry as disclosed by Ishida in para 0070 that a method of forming the metal layer can be achieved by using coating, plating, a thin-film method, etc., and a patterning method of the metal layer can be achieved by using an additive method, a subtractive method.
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 the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing to provide an electronic component with a reduced magnetic loss occurring around the external terminals (para 0005).
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan teaches that at least a portion of the first
ferrite rod consists of ferrite (see Iro’s col. 3, lines 50-55).
Regarding Claim 7:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan teaches that the nonmagnetic layer is
directly on the first ferrite rod (see Iro’s col. 3, lines 50-55).
Regarding Claim 8:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan teaches that the second ferrite rod is
fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing as explained in claim 1 above in light of MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 9:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan teaches that one selected from the group
consisting of the first ferrite rod (see Iro’s col. 3, lines 50-55) and the nonmagnetic layer is fabricated directly onto another one selected from the group consisting of the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer.
Regarding Claim 10:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan teaches that the first ferrite rod and the
nonmagnetic layer are each fabricated utilizing a single additive manufacturing apparatus as explained in claim 1 above in light of MPEP 2113.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Ito in view of Nakajima in view of Ishida and further in view of Yoshioka (US 20220140730 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan does not teach that the first ferrite rod comprises a composition of ferrite and a binder.
However, Yoshioka teaches that the second magnetic layers 721 and 722 may include a resin containing ferrite powder instead of metal magnetic powder as the second magnetic material (see para 0124).
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 the first ferrite rod comprises a composition of ferrite and a binder to connect ferrite particle securely.
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 3, the modified Tan does not teach that the composition comprises
ferrite at 95 wt% or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the composition comprises ferrite at 95 wt% or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to facilitate good magnetic shielding effect. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 the composition comprises
ferrite at 95 wt% or more as claimed to meet design requirements for certain application.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Ito in view of Nakajima in view of Ishida and further in view of Suzuki (US 20120196156 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan does not teach that the nonmagnetic layer
comprises a polymer.
However, Suzuki disclosed in para 0026 that nonmagnetic filler may be selected from the group consisting of an inorganic oxide particle and an organic polymer particle.
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 the nonmagnetic layer
comprises a polymer to provide strength and elasticity.
Regarding Claim 6:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Tan does not teach that the nonmagnetic layer
comprises an inorganic material.
However, Suzuki disclosed in para 0026 that nonmagnetic filler may be selected from the group consisting of an inorganic oxide particle and an organic polymer particle.
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 the nonmagnetic layer
comprises an inorganic material to provide strength and elasticity.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Ito in view of Ishida and further in view of Goodchild (US 20230044989 A1).
Regarding Claim 37:
Tan teaches that a wireless power transfer device (500, Fig. 5A) comprising:
a first transmitting coil (not labeled; i.e. the coil that wound around element 302 in Fig. 5A; para 0043) oriented along a first axis (not labeled; i.e. horizontal direction in Fig. 5A) and comprising a first ferrite rod (302);
a second transmitting coil (not labeled; i.e. the coil that wound around element 304 in Fig. 5A; para 0043) on the first transmitting coil, oriented along a second axis ; (i.e. vertical direction in Fig. 5A) different from the first axis, and comprising a second ferrite rod (304); and
Tan does not teach that a nonmagnetic layer magnetically decoupling the first ferrite rod from the second ferrite rod in an area of overlap between the first and second ferrite rods, the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing. a driver configured to provide a first current to the first transmitting coil and a second current to the second transmitting coil to generate a magnetic field
However, Ito teaches that a nonmagnetic layer (72, Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 15-20) magnetically decoupling the first ferrite rod (1, Fig. 7; col. 3, lines 50-55) from the second ferrite rod (3) in an area of overlap between the first and second ferrite rods.
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 nonmagnetic layer magnetically decoupling the first ferrite rod from the second ferrite rod in an area of overlap between the first and second ferrite rod to reduce the core loss that is caused by high frequency operation of the inductive coupler (col. 1, lines 40-50).
The modified Tan does not teach that the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing.
The process limitations “the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing” in claim (1), 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 ferrite rod layer which has been disclosed by modified Tan (element 302-304 in fig. 5A). Therefore, this limitations are not patentable over Tan.
Furthermore, the process limitation are well known in industry as disclosed by Ishida in para 0070 that a method of forming the metal layer can be achieved by using coating, plating, a thin-film method, etc., and a patterning method of the metal layer can be achieved by using an additive method, a subtractive method.
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 the first ferrite rod and the nonmagnetic layer being fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing to provide an electronic component with a reduced magnetic loss occurring around the external terminals (para 0005).
The modified Tan does not teach that a driver configured to provide a first current to the first transmitting coil and a second current to the second transmitting coil to generate a magnetic field.
However, Goodchild taught in para 0054 that a driver circuit 504 may be configured with multiple power amplifier stages that can provide separate charging currents to multiple transmitting coils 1010a , 1010b , 1010c used to transmit power from the in the wireless charging device to corresponding receiving coils 1004, 1006, 1008.
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 driver configured to provide a first current to the first transmitting coil and a second current to the second transmitting coil to generate a magnetic field that provide a free-positioning charging surface that has multiple transmitting coils or that can concurrently charge multiple receiving devices (para 0023).
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