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 .
Specification
The Abstract filed 6/16/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The limitations of a high energy density “ceramic” member does not find 112(a) support in the specification of the parent application 16/403411. This objection can be overcome by changing the limitation to high energy density “electroceramic” member.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At page 16, line 28 and page 19, line 5, the phrase “flowing atomic elements” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “following atomic elements”.
At page 40, line 23, calling 235 a dielectric discontinuity is objected to as this structure does not appear to be a dielectric discontinuity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 on line 1, the limitation that the magnetic core material “stores magnetic energy” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “can store magnetic energy” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 1 on line 4, the phrase “flowing atomic elements” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “following atomic elements” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 1 on lines 7 and 10, the phrase “by additionally” is objected to grammatically as this narrative in nature. The objection can be overcome deleting the word “additionally” in the two lines of the claim.
In claim 3 on line 1, the phrase “magnetic core materials” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “magnetic core material” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 3 on lines 1-2, the phrase “wherein high energy density electroceramic members have electrical resistivity” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the high energy density electroceramic members have an electrical resistivity of” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 4, the phrase “having thickness” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “having a thickness of” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 5, the phrase “have relative permeability” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “have a relative permeability of” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 6 on line 1, the phrase “wherein dielectric discontinuities” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the dielectric discontinuities” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claims 7 and 8 on line 1 of each claim, the phrase “wherein dielectric discontinuities within optimal” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the dielectric discontinuities within the optimal” which is how the claims will be interpreted.
In claim 8 on lines 2-3, the phrase “micro-volumes of amorphous silica dielectric discontinuities” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “micro-volumes of the amorphous silica dielectric discontinuities” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 8, the phrase “rather than a continuous volume” is objected to grammatically as this is a narrative phrase. The objection can be overcome by deleting the phrase, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 9 on lines 1-2, the phrase “the collection of micro-volume dielectric discontinuities” is objected to grammatically as this is a narrative phrase. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the collection of micro-volumes of the amorphous silica dielectric discontinuities” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 9 on line 5, the phrase “when it is reverse cycled” is objected to grammatically. The objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “when the magnetic circuit is reverse cycled” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 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.
In claim 1, the limitation that the magnetic core material “reduces magnetic saturation” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the claimed magnetic coil is being compared to in order to understand if magnetic saturation has been reduced. For purposes of examination, any magnetic core that meets the body of the claim will be held as meeting this limitation.
In claim 1, the limitation of “high energy density” electroceramic members is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what energy density is considered “high” as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any magnetic core that meets the body of the claim will be held as meeting this limitation.
In claims 1, the limitations that the electroceramic members “minimize eddy current losses”, “minimize hysteresis losses” and “minimize residual magnetic loss” are both relative terms and terms of degree that render the claim indefinite. It is unclear to what we are comparing the magnetic core to understand if the eddy current losses, hysteresis losses and residual magnetic loss is minimized versus. Additionally, it is unclear how one would know if these values have hit a minimum, i.e. they cannot get any lower. Any magnetic core that meets the body of the claim will be held as meeting these limitations.
In claim 1 on lines 3-9, the limitations that the electroceramic members are “consisting of” the first group of atomic elements and also “additionally consisting of” the second group of atomic elements renders the claim indefinite as the first “consisting of” phrase would then preclude the second list of elements or any other element needed to form the core. This does not make sense as a ceramic cannot be made from metal elements alone. This rejection can be overcome by changing the lines 3-9 of the claim to be:
“wherein the electroceramic members comprise any one or all of the atomic elements selected from the group consisting of nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) titanium (Ti), and chromium (Cr); and the electroceramic members comprise any one or all of the atomic elements selected from the group consisting of lead (Pb), strontium (Sr) and magnesium (Mg)”
In claim 1 on line 11, the limitations of “preferably a uniform grain size distribution in the range of 5-7” microns are a broad/narrow limitation within the same claim that renders the claim indefinite. The rejection can be overcome by deleting the preferable limitations at the end of the claim.
In claim 2, the claim is dependent from itself, which renders the claim indefinite. This rejection can be overcome by changing the dependency of the claim to be from claim 1, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 3, the limitations of “preferably ≥ 107” ohm-cm are a broad/narrow limitation within the same claim that renders the claim indefinite. The rejection can be overcome by deleting the preferable limitations at the end of the claim.
In claim 4, the limitations that the “magnetic core material of claim 3 that further minimize eddy current losses” renders the claim indefinite because if the structure of claim 1 has already minimized eddy current losses, then it is not possible to further minimize them. This rejection can be overcome by changing the claim to the “magnetic core material of claim 3, further comprising one or more thin amorphous silica layers having a thickness ≤ 1 µm embedded within the magnetic core material” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 5, the limitations of “preferably µR ≥ 400” are a broad/narrow limitation within the same claim that renders the claim indefinite. The rejection can be overcome by deleting the preferable limitations at the end of the claim.
In claim 6, the limitations that the dielectric discontinuities “are placed at optimal energy storage locations within the magnetic core material to optimize performance as a magnetic energy storage medium within a magnetic circuit” render the claim indefinite for various reasons. First, the limitations of “optimal energy storage locations…to optimize performance” are subjective/relative terms that render the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the objective standard would be to know when one has “optimized performance” of the magnetic core.
Additionally, these limitations are referring to a magnetic circuit that is not included in the magnetic core material, and therefore the optimal locations are relative to where one would place the magnetic circuit, which also renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, any location of the dielectric discontinuities will read on the optimal energy storage locations as it is dependent on the intended use of how the magnetic core is used.
In claim 7, the limitation of “ultra-low loss” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what amount of loss is considered “ultra-low” as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any amorphous silica dielectric will read on this limitation.
In claims 8 and 9, the limitation of “micro-volumes” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what size the volumes must be to be considered “micro” sized as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 9, the phrase “optimally comprise a patterned three dimensional array” represents an exemplary limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the claim is specifically requiring the patterned three dimensional array after the term “optimally comprise” or if this is optional limitation. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this as an optional limitation.
In claim 9, the limitation of a “stable distribution” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what distribution is considered “stable” as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any distribution of micro-volumes will read on this limitation.
In claim 9, the limitation of a “extreme magnetic flux densities” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what magnetic flux density is considered “extreme” as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any volumes having the same amorphous silica materials claimed will read on this limitation.
In claim 9, the limitations that the dielectric discontinuities “induce maximal inductive coupling with conductive elements of the magnetic circuit when it is reverse cycled” render the claim indefinite for various reasons. First, the limitations of “maximal inductive coupling” are subjective/relative terms that render the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the objective standard would be to know when one has “maximal inductive coupling” of the magnetic core.
Additionally, these limitations are referring to conductive elements of the magnetic circuit that are not included in the magnetic core material, and therefore the distribution of the micro-volumes are relative to where one would place the magnetic circuit and conductive material on the magnetic core material, which also renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, any location of the dielectric discontinuities will read on the distribution of the micro-volumes as it is dependent on the intended use of how the magnetic core is used.
In claims 10 and 11, the limitations that the dielectric discontinuities “the optimal energy storage locations within the magnetic core material…is beneath” the secondary coil windings or the coil windings render the claim indefinite because these limitations are in reference to an object that not required in the claim. These limitations are referring to a magnetic circuit that is either transformer coils or coil windings. The transformer coils and coil windings are not required in the magnetic core material, and therefore the optimal locations are relative to where one would place the magnetic circuit on the magnetic core material when it is used for this purpose, which renders the claims indefinite. For purposes of examination, any location of the dielectric discontinuities will read on the optimal energy storage locations as it is dependent on the intended use of how the magnetic core is used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Rochemont (8,749,054).
Please note that the phrase “dielectric discontinuities embedded within high energy density electroceramic members” is being interpreted that the dielectric discontinuities are fixed within the electroceramic members and can extend through one or more electroceramic members to the surface of the magnetic core as can be seen by dielectric 231 in Figure 3D of the application.
With regard to claims 1-3 and 5, de Rochemont teaches a magnetic core material for minimizing hysteresis, eddy current and residual magnetic loss that comprises a high-resistivity and high-permeability electroceramic material 51A, 51B and 51C, which read on applicants’ high energy density electroceramic members, that can be made from a garnet that may comprise Mg or Sr as the ‘A’ element, which reads on applicants’ second group of atomic elements, and Cr, Ti or Co as the ‘B’ element, which reads on applicants’ first group of atomic elements (col. 9, lines 6-23 and col. 9, line 44 to col. 10, line 15). The electroceramic material can have a grain size in the range of 1-5 microns, which reads on applicants’ uniform grain size distribution not greater than 7 microns (col. 10, lines 20-25). The magnetic core may have gaps 66 that are filled with ultra-low loss amorphous silica, which read on applicants’ dielectric discontinuities as the term “gaps” is plural (col. 11, lines 1-9 and Figure 4); however, de Rochemont does not specifically teach the composition of the electroceramic members as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the electroceramic material 51A, 51B and 51C be made from a garnet having Mg or Sr as the ‘A’ element and Cr, Ti or Co as the ‘B’ element as this is within the teaching of the composition of the prior art. Since the electroceramic material has the same structure and materials as preferentially claimed and disclosed, the electroceramic material of the prior art will intrinsically have the electrical resistivity and relative permeability claimed
With regard to claim 4, the magnetic core has amorphous silica layers 50 between the electroceramic material layers 51A, 51B and 51C, which reads on applicants’ one or more thin amorphous silica layers embedded within the magnetic core material; however, de Rochemont does not specifically teach the thickness claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have made the thickness of the thin amorphous silica layers 50 any amount, including 1 micron or less as claimed in order to have the eddy current losses be as small as possible while maintains its abilities to be a proper magnetic core.
With regard to claims 6-8, as noted in the 112(b) rejections above, any location of the dielectric discontinuities will read on the optimal energy storage locations as it is dependent on the intended use of how the magnetic core is used. Since there are plural “gaps” of ultra-low loss amorphous silica, one of the plural gaps reads on the continuous volume of claim 7 (col. 11, lines 1-4). Also, each of the gaps could read on a micro-volume, and therefore the plural “gaps” together read on a collection of micro-volumes of claim 8.
With regard to claim 9, the patterned three-dimensional array is optional as explained in the 112(b) rejection above. Since de Rochemont meets claim 8, it also renders obvious claim 9.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, these represent intended use limitations of the magnetic core when it is used with a magnetic circuit in a flyback transformer coil or an energy storing inductor coil arrangement. Given that the magnetic core of de Rochemont has the same materials and structure as in claims 1 and 8, it can intrinsically be used in a flyback transformer coil or an energy storing inductor coil arrangement and have the dielectric discontinuities be placed beneath the secondary coil winding or coil windings, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm (variable one work-at-home day).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785