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 .
This office action is a response to the election of species filed on 3/30/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B, claims 13-20, in the reply filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --METHOD OF FABRICATING A MAGNETIC COMPONENT STRUCTURE WITH THERMAL CONDUCTIVE FILLER--.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 13: The phrase “method of fabricating a magnetic component structure with thermal conductive filler” as recited in lines 1-2 appears to be --method of fabricating a magnetic component structure with a thermal conductive filler--.
The phrase “to form a thermal conductive filler” as recited in lines 5-6 appears to be –to form the thermal conductive filler--.
Re. claim 18: The phrase “wherein a thermal conductivity of said thermal conductive filler material is larger” as recited in lines 2-3 appears to be --wherein a thermal conductivity of said thermal conductive filler is larger--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
The phrase “said bobbin” as recited in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 13, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setiabudi et al. (PGPub 2001/001895 A1) in view of Mizushima et al. (US PAT. 7,277,001).
Setiabudi et al. teach a process of fabricating a magnetic component structure with thermal conductive filler, comprising steps of: providing a mold comprising an upper core (29) and a lower core (30) with a coil (19) mounted therein as shown in Figs. 5-6 (see also paragraph [0031]); and potting the mold with a thermal conductive material (an epoxy resin, paragraphs [0033]-[0035], Fig. 7) to form a thermal conductive filler encapsulating at least a portion of the coil as shown in Fig. 8.
However, Setiabudi et al. silent a magnetic core for the upper core and the lower core of the mold. Mizushima et al. teach a process of making a coil embedded core including a mold comprising an upper magnetic core (134) and a lower magnetic core (135) with a coil (131) mounted therein as shown I Fig. 15 (col. 1, line 54 to col. 2, line 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a magnetic component structure of Setiabudi et al. by providing a mold comprising an upper magnetic core and a lower magnetic core as taught by Mizushima et al. in order to produce a desired magnetic component structure with thermal conductive filler. Since such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of obtaining desirable magnetic component structure.
Re. claim 14: Setiabudi et al. also teach that a shape of said thermal conductive filler in said upper magnetic core and said lower magnetic core is conformal to inner walls of said upper magnetic core and said lower magnetic core as shown in Fig. 5.
Re. claim 16: Setiabudi et al. also teach that a bobbin (14, Fig. 3, paragraph [0031]) mounted between the upper magnetic core and the lower magnetic core, and the coil winds on the bobbin, and at least parts of the coil encapsulate on the bobbin and the lower magnetic core by the thermal conductive filler as shown in Figs. 4-6.
Re. claim 17: Setiabudi et al. also teach that the bobbin further comprises two sidewalls extending conformally along outer sides of said coil as shown in Fig. 3.
Re. claim 18: Even though Setiabudi et al. silent a thermal conductivity of the thermal conductive filler, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal conductive filler as recited in the claimed invention because Applicant has not disclosed that the thermal conductive filler as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. It is generally known to the person skilled in the art that both thermal conductive filler of Setiabudi et al. and the claimed invention are equivalent and can be interchanged with one another where circumstances make it desirable. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the thermal conductive filler having a thermal conductivity of Setiabudi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Re. claim 19: Mizushima et al. silent a magnetic material to from the upper magnetic core and the lower magnetic core. Since Mizushima et al. teach the mold including the upper magnetic core and the lower magnetic core, the material of Fe—Si based alloy, Fe—Ni based alloy is well known to be used producing a magnetic component. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily select materials from the recited lists to result in the required differing compositions. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers (or materials) involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). The applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Therefore, since such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of obtaining a material, Fe—Si based alloy, Fe—Ni based alloy, for desirable the upper magnetic core and the lower magnetic core.
Re. claim 20: Setiabudi et al. teach the epoxy resin for the thermal conductive filler. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily select materials from the recited lists to result in the required differing compositions. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the thermal conductive filler of Setiabudi et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setiabudi et al. in view of Mizushima et al., as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US PAT. 9,087,634).
Setiabudi et al., modified by Mizushima et al., teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent the thermal conductive filler, which extends outwardly from an opening of upper magnetic core and said lower magnetic core. Sakamoto et al. teach a process of making a coil embedded core including a mold including “FIG. 4 is a schematic view that shows a dispenser 40 that supplies a mixture 42 into a metal mold 50 to embed an inductor element. FIG. 5 is a schematic view that shows a process for removing excessive mixture by a sharp edge 57 of a remover 56, col. 9, lines 20-24 and “As shown in Step 4 in FIG. 3, an outer shape of the mixture 42 is adjusted. In addition, excessive mixture 42 is removed, col. 10, lines 19-20). It is noted that the thermal conductive filler (the mixture, 42) clearly extends outwardly from the mold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a magnetic component structure of Setiabudi et al., modified by Mizushima et al., by providing the thermal conductive filler extending outwardly from the mold as taught by Sakamoto et al. in order to provide a desired shape of the core.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. XIONG (PGPub 2010/0265029 A1), Pan et al. (PGPub 2017/0004920 A1), and Nakata et al. (US PAT. 6,774,755) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a process of fabricating a magnetic component structure including a mold comprising an upper magnetic core and a lower magnetic core with a coil mounted in the magnetic cores.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights