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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Park does not teach “a bobbin comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the second portion is connected the first portion and comprises a thermoplastic material” as recited in claim 1. Applicant asserts that the first portion 12 and 20 and the second portion 70 of the bobbin 10 in Park are made with “material having high heat resistance” (para. [0080]), and thermoplastic materials have poor to moderate heat resistance. Accordingly, applicant concludes that the claimed invention is not obvious over Park.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. Park expressly teaches the second portion 70 of the bobbin 10 could be made with, among others, polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) or liquid crystal polyester (LCP) (para. [0080]). These two materials are considered thermoplastic materials.
PNG
media_image1.png
147
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(https://www.specialchem.com/plastics/guide/polyphenylene-sulfide-pps-plastic-guide).
PNG
media_image2.png
156
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542504820300440).
Claim 1 merely recites the second portion of the bobbin comprises a thermoplastic material. There is no heat resistance limitations. Since Park teaches “the second portion…comprises a thermoplastic material” as recited in claim 1, the examiner maintains claim 1 is obvious over Park.
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, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2014/0001976 A1, hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches a magnetic member 100 (Fig. 2), comprising:
a bobbin 10 comprising a first portion 12 and 20 and a second portion 70, wherein the second portion is connected to the first portion and comprises a thermoplastic material (“polyphenylenesulfide (PPS), liquid crystal polyester (LCP)…” para. [0080]);
a coil 50 wound on the first portion of the bobbin and comprising a terminal end (lead), the terminal end being fixed at the second portion of the bobbin; and
a magnetic core 40 disposed on the bobbin and extending through the bobbin (paras. [0040], [0042], [0050], and [0078]).
PNG
media_image3.png
557
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Park does not expressly teach the first portion comprises an insulating material different from the thermoplastic material.
However, Park teaches first portion and the second portion of the bobbin each can be made with different materials (paras. [0041] and [0080]). Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would know the first portion and the second portion of the bobbin could be made with different material so that the production of the magnetic can continue even when the thermoplastic material is not available. 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 provide the first portion with an insulating material different from the thermoplastic material as claimed to facilitate manufacturing.
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches the magnetic member of claim 1, wherein the insulating material of the first portion of the bobbin is a thermoset material (“phenolic resin” para. [0041]).
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches the magnetic member of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the bobbin comprises a first engaging structure 28, the second portion comprises a second engaging structure 78 interlocking with the first engaging structure (para. [0062]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Liu et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2013/0249665 A1, hereinafter “Liu,”).
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches the magnetic member of claim 1. Park does not expressly teach the second portion of the bobbin surrounds and contacts the terminal end of the coil.
Liu teaches a magnetic member (Fig. 4), wherein the second portion 200 of the bobbin 100 surrounds and contacts the terminal end 610 of the coil 610 (para. [0035]). 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 second portion surrounding the end of the coil as taught by Liu to the magnetic member of Park to improve the stability of the coil connection to the terminal pin.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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