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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Objections The last line of Claim 17 should say “ are configured to receive” after “stopper” for clarity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3-5, and 11- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as being unpatentable over Ratz et al. ( US-20150228401-A1 ), hereinafter Ratz . Regarding Claim 1, Ratz teaches a bracket (Fig. 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) for holding an inductor, comprising a toroidal magnetic core ( 201 ) and a coil ( 202 ) wound onto the toroidal magnetic core, the bracket comprising: a base ( 205 ) including a base plate ( 211 ) with at least one lower venting passage (holes 206, disposed on base plate 211; par [0092] ) therethrough and configured to attach to an installation surface (Paragraph [0100]) and at least one first member ( 208, 212, arms and pins respectively ) extending from the base plate (Fig. 2); and a top cover ( 204 ) including an upper plate ( 210 ) with at least one upper venting passage (holes 206, disposed on upper plate 210, par [0092] ) therethrough and at least one second member ( 208, 212, arms and pins respectively ) extending from the upper plate and configured to be joined with the at least one first member to contain the inductor (Par [0093]; Fig. 2) ( Arm extension 208 of the base connects to arm extension 208 of the upper plate, and they are secured to each other by pins 212 in each hole.) in a space defined by the base plate, the upper plate, the at least one first member and the at least one second member (Paragraph [0089-0093]; Figure 2). Regarding Claim 3 , Ratz teaches the bracket (Figure 2, Paragraph [0089-0093]) according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first member ( 208, 212; from upper plate ) and the at least one second member ( 208, 212; from lower plate ) each comprise at least three coupling arms (there are two arms 208 on the upper plate, two arms 208 on the base plate, as well as two arm extensions 207 on both the top and base plates all of which connect with pins 212 ) configured to be positioned between neighboring wires ( 203 ) of the coil when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (Paragraph [0085; 0089-0093]; Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 4 , Ratz teaches the bracket (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) according to claim 3, wherein the coupling arms ( 207 and 208 ) abut the toroidal magnetic core ( 201 ) when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (Paragraph [0017-0019]; Fig. 2; Mrad ). Regarding Claim 5 , Ratz teaches the bracket (Figure 2, Paragraph [0089-0093]) according to claim 3, wherein the coupling arms of the base and top cover ( 207 and 208 ) detachably connect to one another (Paragraph [0089-0093]; Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 11, Ratz teaches an apparatus (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) comprising: a base plate ( 211 ); a first plurality of coupling arms ( 207, 208 ) extending from the base plate; an upper plate ( 210 ); and a second plurality of coupling arms ( 207, 208 ) extending from the upper plate, wherein ends of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms are attached to one another ( Arm extension 208 of the base connects to arm extension 208 of the upper plate, and they are secured to each other by pins 212 in each hole.) ; and an inductor (coil 202 wound onto core 201 ) disposed in a space defined by the base plate, the upper plate and the first and second pluralities of coupling arms (Paragraph [0089-0093]; Figure 2). Regarding Claim 12 , Ratz teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the inductor comprises: a toroidal magnetic core ( 201 ); and a coil ( 202 ) wound onto the toroidal magnetic core (Fig. 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]). Regarding Claim 13 , Ratz teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein first and second ends (lower and upper sides, respectively) of the toroidal magnetic core ( 201 ) face respective ones of the base plate ( 211 ) and the upper plate ( 210 ) and wherein the first and second pluralities of coupling arms ( 207 and 208 ) are disposed adjacent sides of the toroidal magnetic core (Fig. 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]). Regarding Claim 14 , Ratz teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the coupling arms of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms ( 207 and 208 ) extend between neighboring wires of the coil ( 203 ) (Paragraph [0085; 0089-0093]; Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 15 , Ratz teaches the apparatus (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) of claim 14, wherein the coupling arms of the first and second pluralities of coupling arms ( 207 and 208 ) abut the toroidal magnetic core (Fig. 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]). Arms 207 and 208 are extensions of top cover 204, which abuts the toroidal core 201 (Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 16 , Ratz teaches the apparatus (Paragraph [0089-0093]; Fig. 2) according to claim 12, wherein the coupling arms ( 207 and 208 ) of the base and top cover detachably connect to one another (Paragraph [0089-0093]; Fig. 2). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 . Claim s 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratz in view of Mrad et al. ( US20220044860A1 ), hereinafter Mrad . Regarding Claim 6 , Ratz teaches the bracket (Figure 2, Paragraph [0089-0093]) according to claim 1, Ratz does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein the base further includes at least three lower supporting parts protruding towards the top cover ( 60 ) from the base plate, and configured to abut a first end of the toroidal magnetic core facing the base plate when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket. Mrad teaches a bracket for an inductor, wherein the base ( 30 ) further includes at least three lower supporting parts ( 34 ) protruding towards the top cover ( 60 ) from the base plate, and configured to abut a first end ( 34 is disposed on the lower side of the core 40 in Fig. 2) of the toroidal magnetic core facing the base plate when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (Paragraph [0017]; Mrad ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the bracket of Ratz with the teachings of Mrad in order to provide additional supports around the inductor core and reduce any unwanted movement. Regarding Claim 7 , Ratz in view of Mrad teaches the bracket (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) according to claim 6, wherein the top cover ( 60 ) further includes at least three upper supporting parts ( 64 ) protruding towards the base ( 30 ) from the upper plate, and configured to abut a second end ( 64 is disposed on the upper side of the core 40 in Fig. 2) of the toroidal magnetic core facing the upper plate when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (Paragraph [0017]; Mrad ). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratz , as applied to claim 1, in view of Zheng et al. ( CN 105679497 B ) and further in view of Nakamura et al. ( JP-2014053453-A ), hereinafter Zheng and Nakamura , respectively . Regarding Claim 9 , Ratz teaches the bracket (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) according to claim 1, Ratz does not disclose an embodiment wherein 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 notch is provided on an outer wall of the second ring part, and wherein the notch is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket . Zheng teaches a bracket, wherein the upper plate ( 150 ) includes a first ring part ( 154 ) and a second ring part ( 151 ) with a diameter greater than that of the first ring part, wherein the first ring part is connected to the second ring via ribs ( 152 ) spaced apart along an outer wall of the first ring part, wherein a notch ( 157 ) is provided on an outer wall of the second ring part, and wherein the notch is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil when the inductor is accommodated within the bracket (Paragraph 4 of the Detailed Description of the Specification; Fig. 3, Zheng). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the bracket of Ratz with the teachings of Zheng by using a ring structure with a notch in order to secure the lead-out portions of the coil to prevent unwanted movement or contact with other components. However, the combination of Ratz and Zheng does not teach an embodiment wherein a stopper extends from an inner wall of the first ring part and is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil. Nakamura teaches an embodiment wherein a stopper (Guide projection 5p; Fig 1; Paragraph [0024-0025]) extends from an inner wall of the first ring part and is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil (lead wire 4aa ) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ratz in view of Zheng with the teachings of Nakamura by including a stopper, in this case referred to as a guide projection by Nakamura, in order to prevent unwanted movement from the lead wire, which could lead to the wire coming in contact with other components and result in damage to the device or lead to undesired results (Paragraph [0025]; Nakamura). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratz , as applied to claim 1, in further view of Deng et al. ( US-20200176178-A1 ), hereinafter Deng . Regarding Claim 10 , Ratz teaches the bracket (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) according to claim 1. However, Ratz does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the 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 wherein the base plate ( 4, a bracket portion which is at the base of the inductor ) is provided with a mounting hole ( 424 ) for receiving a fastener for attachment of the base plate to the installation surface (Par [0059-0060]; Fig. 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Ratz with the teachings of Deng by including a mounting hole in order to secure the bracket device to other surfaces. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratz , as applied to claim 12, in view of Zheng , and further in view of Nakamura. Regarding Claim 17 , Ratz teaches the apparatus (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) of claim 12. Ratz does not teach an embodiment wherein 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 notch is provided on an outer wall of the second ring part, and wherein the notch is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil. Zheng teaches an apparatus wherein the upper plate ( 150 ) includes a first ring part ( 154 ) and a second ring part ( 151 ) 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 ( 152 ) spaced apart along an outer wall of the first ring part, wherein a notch ( 157 ) is provided on an outer wall of the second ring part, and wherein the notch is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the bracket of Ratz with the teachings of Zheng by using a ring structure with a notch in order to secure the lead-out portions of the coil to prevent unwanted movement or contact with other components. However, the combination of Ratz and Zheng does not teach an embodiment wherein a stopper extends from an inner wall of the first ring part and is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil. Nakamura teaches an embodiment wherein a stopper (Guide projection 5p; Fig 1; Paragraph [0024-0025]) extends from an inner wall of the first ring part and is configured to receive leading-out terminals of the coil (lead wire 4aa ) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ratz in view of Zheng with the teachings of Nakamura by including a stopper, in this case referred to as a guide projection by Nakamura, in order to prevent unwanted movement from the lead wire, which could lead to the wire coming in contact with other components and result in damage to the device or lead to undesired results (Paragraph [0025]; Nakamura). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratz , as applied to claim 11, in further view of Deng. Regarding Claim 18 , Ratz teaches the apparatus (Figure 2; Paragraph [0089-0093]) of claim 11. However, Ratz does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the 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 wherein the base plate ( 4, a bracket portion which is at the base of the inductor ) is provided with a mounting hole ( 424 ) for receiving a fastener for attachment of the base plate to the installation surface (Par [0059-0060]; Fig. 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Ratz with the teachings of Deng by including a mounting hole in order to secure the bracket device to other surfaces. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AISLIN WEST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0552 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shawki S Ismail can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /AISLIN M WEST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2837 /SHAWKI S ISMAIL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837