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 with respect to claims 1, 3-7 and 9-18 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it’s not clear what “they” in line 11 refers to. For examination purpose, “they” is interpreted as the at least one fist member and the at least one second member.
Similar rejection is applied to claim 11.
Claims 3-7, 9, 10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1 or 11, and therefore inheriting the indefiniteness thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imanishi et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0311845 A1, hereinafter “Imanishi”).
With respect to claim 1, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Imanishi teaches a bracket 20 for holding an inductor 10 comprising a toroidal magnetic core 30 and a coil 40 wound onto the toroidal magnetic core, the bracket comprising:
a base (bottom plate 24, opening 25 and lower flange member 23) including a base plate (bottom plate 24) with at least one lower venting passage 25 therethrough and configured to attach to an installation surface (surface of installation base 50) and at least one first member (lower flange member 23) extending from the base plate; and
a top cover (top plate 24, opening 25 and upper flange member 23) including an upper plate (top plate 24) with at least one upper venting passage 25 therethrough and at least one second member (upper flange member 23) extending from the upper plate and configured to be joined with the at least one first member to contain the inductor in a space defined by the base plate, the upper plate, the at least one first member and the at least one second member;
wherein the at least one first member and the at least one second member are arranged such that, when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket, they are positioned between neighboring wires of the coil located within the space defined by the base plate, the upper plate, the at least one first member and the at least one second member (paras. [0029], [0032], [0035] and [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Imanishi teaches the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first member and the at least one second member each comprise at least three coupling arms configured to be positioned between neighboring wires of the coil when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (para. [0036]).
With respect to claim 5, Imanishi teaches the bracket according to claim 3, wherein the coupling arms of the base and top cover detachably connect to one another (para. [0036]).
With respect to claim 11, Imanishi teaches an apparatus (FIGs. 1-2) comprising:
a bracket 20 comprising:
a base plate (lower plate 24);
a first plurality of coupling arms (lower arms 23) extending from the base plate;
an upper plate (top plate 24); and
a second plurality of coupling arms (upper arms 23) extending from the upper plate, wherein ends (tip) of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms are attached to one another; and
an inductor 10 disposed in a space defined by the base plate, the upper plate and the first and second pluralities of coupling arms,
wherein the first and second pluralities of coupling arms are arranged such that, when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket, they are positioned between neighboring wires of the coil located within the space defined by the base plate, the upper plate, and the first and second pluralities of coupling arms (paras. [0029], [0032], [0035] and [0036]).
With respect to claim 12, Imanishi teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the inductor comprises:
a toroidal magnetic core 30; and
a coil 40 wound onto the toroidal magnetic core (para. [0029]).
With respect to claim 13, Imanishi teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein first and second ends (top and bottom end faces) of the toroidal magnetic core face respective ones of the base plate and the upper plate and wherein the first and second pluralities of coupling arms are disposed adjacent sides of the toroidal magnetic core (paras. [0029] and [0036]).
With respect to claim 14, Imanishi teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the coupling arms of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms extend between neighboring wires of the coil (para. [0036]).
With respect to claim 16, Imanishi teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the coupling arms of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms detachably connect to one another (para. [0036]).
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi, as applied to claims 3 and 11 above, in view of Mrad et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2022/0044860 A1, hereinafter “Mrad”).
With respect to claims 4, Imanishi teaches the bracket according to claim 3. Imanishi does not expressly teach the coupling arms abut the toroidal magnetic core when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket.
Mrad teaches a bracket 30 and 60 (FIGs. 14) for holding an inductor (core 40 and coils 44), wherein the coupling arms (upper arms 64 and lower out leg of U-shaped supports) abut the toroidal magnetic core 40 when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (paras. [0010], [0017]). 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 coupling arms abutting the magnetic core as taught by Mrad to the bracket of Imanishi to improve the mechanical stability of the inductor.
With respect to claim 15, Imanishi teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Imanishi does not expressly teach the coupling arms of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms abut the toroidal magnetic core.
Mrad teaches an apparatus (FIGs. 14), wherein the coupling arms (upper arms 64 and lower out leg of U-shaped supports) of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms abut the toroidal magnetic core 40 (paras. [0010], [0017]). 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 coupling arms abutting the magnetic core as taught by Mrad to the bracket of Imanishi to improve the mechanical stability of the inductor.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Heinrich (U.S. Patent No. 5,670,924).
With respect to claim 6, Imanishi teaches the bracket according to claim 1. Imanishi does not expressly teach the base further includes at least three lower supporting parts protruding towards the top cover from the base plate and configured to a first end of the toroidal magnetic core facing the base plate when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket.
Heinrich teaches a bracket 20 and 30 (Fig. 1), wherein the base 20 further includes at least three lower supporting parts (part 36 and a larger projecting part at the base of part 36) protruding towards the top cover 30 from the base plate and configured to a first end of the toroidal magnetic core facing the base plate when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (col. 2, lines 52-60). 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 supporting parts as taught by Heinrich to the bracket of Imanishi to improve the mechanical stability of the inductor.
With respect to claim 7, Imanishi in view of Heinrich teaches the bracket according to claim 6, wherein the top cover 30 further includes at least three upper supporting parts (part that extending downward and radially) protruding towards the base from the upper plate and configured to abut a second end of the toroidal magnetic core facing the upper plate when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (Heinrich, col. 2, lines 42-49).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Deng et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2020/0176178 A1, hereinafter “Deng”).
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Imanishi teaches the bracket according to claim 1 and the apparatus according to claim 10, respectively. Imanishi does not expressly teach base plate is provided with a mounting hole for receiving a fastener for attachment of the base plate to the installation surface.
Deng teaches a bracket 3 (FIG. 1) and an apparatus (FIG. 1), wherein [the] base plate 4 is provided with a mounting hole 424 for receiving a fastener (not expressly shown) for attachment of the base plate to the installation surface (para. [0059]). 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 mounting hole and fastener as taught by Deng to the bracket and or the apparatus of Imanishi to attach the inductor to the mounting board to improve mechanical stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 recites, inter alia, the upper plate includes a first ring part and a second ring part with a diameter greater than that of the first ring part, wherein the first ring part is connected to the second ring via ribs spaced apart along an outer wall of the first ring part, wherein a stopper extends from an inner wall of the first ring part, wherein a notch is provided on an outer wall of the second ring part, and wherein the notch and the stopper are configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket.
Claim 17 recites, inter alia, the upper plate comprises a first ring part and a second ring part with a diameter greater than that of the first ring part, wherein the first ring part is connected to the second ring part via ribs spaced apart along an outer wall of the first ring part, wherein a stopper extends from an inner wall of the first ring part, wherein a notch is provided on an outer wall of the second ring part, and wherein the notch and the stopper are configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil.
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 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