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 Amendment
Claims 1, 4, and 6-7 are amended. No claims are canceled. Claim 18 is added. As a result, claims 1-18 remain under consideration.
The traversal regarding the drawings is persuasive and objection is withdrawn.
The amendment to claims 4, 6 and 7 obviates the previously indicated objection.
The amendment to claims 1 and 7 obviates the previously indicated rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that:
“… the cited outer core member 102a is not separate conductive casing, but rather an integral part of the inductor core component 101a. Simply, one would not understand the outer core member 102a as a conductive casing, particularly because this outer core member functions as a primary flux conductor in the magnetic circuit, and not a separate conductive shield that blocks residual magnetic field, as suggested by the Office action. See e.g., Fig. 7a. […] In short, Pennander's outer core member 102a would be understood as the claimed ferromagnetic columns, and not the conductive casing. In fact, the Office action seems to understand this, and asserts that the inductor core components correspond to the claimed columns. Even if one would understand that the outer core member 102a as a conductive casing, Pennander's arrangement, and reliance thereof, does not meet the claim requirements that the columns are located between the casing and the inductor because the outer core member 102a cannot be between itself and another element.”
The Applicant also contends that “One in the art would not understand these insulating gaps as between the ferromagnetic elements in the elongation direction of the column. Rather, the gaps of Pennander would more likely be understood as the gaps between each column. In fact, Pennander [0014] describes that the gaps are in the circumferential direction, and not in the elongated direction of the column.”
The claim requires electromagnetic shielding comprising a concentrator (Schreiter, magnetic-flux guide 2) located between a casing (Schreiter, support 5) and the inductor (Schreiter, inductor 1). Although Schreiter's shielding is disclosed to be surrounded by support 5, it does not explicitly disclose that this support 5 functions as an electrically conductive casing. This shielding by Schreiter is modified by Pennander in two ways:
1) The ferromagnetic columns of Schreiter are not disclosed as being separated by electrically insulating gaps in the direction of elongation. Here, Pennander teaches the structure of ferromagnetic columns in general, corresponding to Schreiter's magnetic flux guides 2, being separated by electrically insulating gaps in the direction of elongation via an air gap at the end of each column with an elongation coinciding with the magnetic field lines. The rejection relies solely on this air gap to separate the ferromagnetic column from another ferromagnetic element, which corresponds to the claimed electrically insulating gaps, and may also be in place in the inner core of Pennander (Pennander, [0016]) as they are not limited by only being an outer core feature by the reference.
2) The supports 5 of Schreiter are taught to "encase" the magnetic flux guides, however, they are not disclosed as being electrically conductive. Here, Pennander modifies the supports 5 with the disclosure of an outer structure made out of an electrically conductive material, which corresponds to the claimed "electrically conductive casing" as written, surrounding an inner core which by itself corresponds with Schreiter's disclosed apparatus with columns modified by the air gaps taught by Pennander. This outer structure of Pennander confines a magnetic flux and reduces interference with surroundings from the inner core (Pennander, [0024]).
Accordingly, ferromagnetic columns separated by electrically insulated gaps surrounded by an electrically conductive casing is taught by a combination of Schreiter’s apparatus modified by Pennander as written.
Furthermore these air gaps, which are disclosed by Pennander as “the gaps 210, 211 and/or 214 may be filled with air, wherein the magnetic flux barrier is formed as an air gap” (Pennander, [0065]), the gap 214 being the air gap at the end of the column separating it from another ferromagnetic material, have a width in both parallel and perpendicular direction of elongation, and are explicitly taught by Pennander as having the effect of reduced magnetic permeability between core components (Pennander, [0013]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to introduce a plurality of gaps between the ferromagnetic columns in a parallel and perpendicular direction, adjusting the width to obtain a predictable outcome as desired.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 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.
For reasons detailed herein, the Examiner maintains, based on the preponderance of evidence that the rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper.
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 1-4, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in further view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1.
Claim 1. Schreiter discloses a shielded electromagnetic inductor, comprising:
an inductor arranged in front of a load to be heated by electromagnetic induction and composed of at least one conductive turn, where current flows in a turn length direction, and (Schreiter, Fig. 4 shows crucible furnace 10 where the load to be heated is placed is wrapped with induction coil 1 composing of multiple turns.)
an electromagnetic shielding comprising a magnetic field concentrator arranged in front of the inductor, with the inductor between said field concentrator and the load, said concentrator comprising ferromagnetic columns, (Schreiter, Fig. 4 shows the magnetic flux guide 2, corresponding with the claimed magnetic field concentrator, arranged in front of the induction coil 1, which is in front of the crucible furnace 10 where the load is placed; and col. 2 line 54 “For this the rods consisting of magnetically permeable material, especially metallic material as iron…”, ferromagnetic defined as “noting or pertaining to a substance, as iron, that below a certain temperature, the Curie point, can possess magnetization in the absence of an external magnetic field” (see dictionary.com).)
Although Schreiter does not explicitly state that the rods corresponding to the claimed columns are composed of ferromagnetic elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize iron as one of the possible ferromagnetic elements that may be used in the composition of the rods.
a main direction of elongation of which coincides with a direction of a main component of magnetic field lines propagated by the inductor on a side oriented to the field concentrator, (Schreiter, col. 1 line 18 “a plurality of magnetic-flux guides formed as individual units arranged on the outer surface of the coil in a angularly spaced condition that units include an array of a plurality of elongate individual elements of magnetically permeable material that are electrically insulated with respect to one another and that extend parallel to the furnace axes and that serve for the guidance of the magnetic flux generated by the coil, respectively.”)
the columns being separated from each other by an electrically insulating medium and each embracing a portion of turn length of the inductor, (Schreiter, col. 5 line 17 “… the complete array 3 is formed of rods 7 electrically insulated with respect to one another…”; each rod 7 covers a portion of the turn length of the inductor.)
wherein the columns are composed of ferromagnetic elements succeeding each other in said direction of elongation and (Schreiter, col. 2 line 54 “For this the rods consisting of magnetically permeable material, especially metallic material as iron…”, ferromagnetic defined as “noting or pertaining to a substance, as iron, that below a certain temperature, the Curie point, can possess magnetization in the absence of an external magnetic field” (see dictionary.com); and Fig. 5 shows these rods 7 succeed each other in the direction of elongation.)
Fig. 4 of Schreiter teaches a shielded electromagnetic inductor, comprising: an inductor arranged in front of a load to be heated by electromagnetic induction and composed of at least one conductive turn, where current flows in a turn length direction, and an electromagnetic shielding comprising a magnetic field concentrator arranged in front of the inductor, with the inductor between said field concentrator and the load, said concentrator comprising ferromagnetic columns, a main direction of elongation of which coincides with a direction of a main component of magnetic field lines propagated by the inductor on a side oriented to the field concentrator, the columns being separated from each other by an electrically insulating medium and each embracing a portion of turn length of the inductor, wherein the columns are composed of ferromagnetic elements succeeding each other in said direction of elongation and…
But it does not teach the field concentrator being located between said casing and the inductor.
Fig. 3 of Schreiter teaches the field concentrator being located between said casing and the inductor. (Schreiter, Figs. 3-4 show the rods 7 that are part of the magnetic-flux guide 2 are between the support 5 and the inductor 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the magnetic-flux guides 7, corresponding to the claimed field concentrator, between the support 5, corresponding to the claimed casing, and the coil 1 in order to fix the electric sheets into the support and situate them collectively parallel to the magnetic field lines of coil 1.
Schreiter does not disclose [wherein the columns are…] separated by electrically insulating gaps, having lower magnetic permeability and shorter length than the ferromagnetic elements in said direction of elongation, and wherein the electromagnetic shielding further comprises an electrically conductive casing.
Pennander teaches [wherein the columns are…] separated by a plurality of electrically insulating gaps, having lower magnetic permeability and shorter length than the ferromagnetic elements in said direction of elongation, and (Pennander, [0013] “The flux barrier may be an air gap or a gap filled with another material having a lower permeability than the material of the first and second inductor core components”; Fig. 2 shows that the gaps are formed perpendicular and parallel to the direction of elongation; Fig. 7a, 7b and 7d shows more clearly the direction of elongation coinciding with the magnetic field lines; and [0016] “… the core member including the magnetic flux barrier may be the inner core member or the outer core member, or both, i.e. the first core member may be the inner or the outer core member, and the second core member may be the corresponding other one of the inner and outer core members.”)
wherein the electromagnetic shielding further comprises an electrically conductive casing, (Pennander [0024] “The outer core member at least partly surrounding the core member may thus provide the double effect of confining a magnetic flux, generated by a current flowing in the winding, to the inductor core and thereby minimize or at least reduce interference with the surroundings while acting as a flux conductor.”)
Schreiter and Pennander are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Schreiter differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly state that the inductor is surrounded by a housing or casing. However, Pennander teaches an outer core member, which may be made with electrically conductive materials such as ferrite powder or iron particles (see Pennander, [0055]), that surrounds an inner core member which may be comprised magnetic flux barriers in the form of air gaps. This outer core member (see Pennander, Fig. 1 element 102a) functions similarly to the claimed casing in that it reduces interference with the surroundings (see Pennander, [0024]) and the apparatus of Schreiter may have columns separated by air gaps as taught by Pennander that corresponds to the inner core member that is encased by Pennander’s electrically conductive material outer structure. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shielding of the inductor, particularly the supports 5 that hold the magnetic flux guide 2 as claimed by Schreiter modified with air gaps as taught by Pennander, with an additional surrounding casing made of electrically conductive material similar to the outer core member 102a as taught by Pennander. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification by making the housing or casing electrically conductive in order to more effectively confine the magnetic flux and reduce interference with the surroundings.
Claim 2. Modified Schreiter teaches the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic elements are of ferrite. (Pennander, [0055] “The inductor core components 101a and 101b may each be made of compacted magnetic powder material. The material may be soft magnetic powder. The material may be ferrite powder.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ferromagnetic elements taught by Schreiter to be made of the ferrite powder taught by Pennander. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because ferrite, particularly in its soft powder form “… may be filled into a die and compacted… then be heat treated” to shape the core component using “uniaxial compaction with a tighter tolerance in the radial and circumferential directions than in the axial direction.”
Claim 3. Modified Schreiter teaches the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1, wherein the inductor has a rotational shape about the load and about an axis, (Schreiter, Fig. 4 shows the induction coil 1 surrounding the crucible furnace 10 about a longitudinal axis parallel to the furnace axis.)
the direction of elongation of the columns coincides with the direction of the axis, and (Schreiter, Fig. 4 shows the magnetic flux guides 2 shaped like columns coincides with the direction of the furnace axis.)
the electrically conductive casing comprises a portion with a rotational shape about the axis, which surrounds the field concentrator. (Pennander, Fig. 1 shows that the outer core 102a has a rotational shape about the axis and surrounds the inner core 105a.)
Claim 4. Modified Schreiter teaches the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1, wherein said plurality of electrically insulating gaps are dimensioned so as to increase a total reluctance of the shielding by a factor of 20 to 80. (Pennander, [0069] “Consequently, the reluctance of the gap defined between the narrow side faces is considerably larger than the reluctance of the gap between the broad side faces. Consequently, the reluctance of the inductor may be controlled more accurately, and flux leakage is reduced”; and [0074] “As the flux path saturates there will be alternative paths for the flux that is now directed to a higher reluctance that will reduce the inductance. It is possible to stabilize these two induction levels with an appropriate design of the air-gap sections”; and [0074] “The dimensions of the core, in particular the size of the projections and the tangential and axial gaps between the inductor core components, may be selected to provide a partial low reluctance path that will establish the high initial low load inductance...”)
Modified Schreiter discloses the claimed invention except for the factor of total reluctance achieved by said gap dimensions. However, Pennander teaches that the reluctance of the inductor is a direct function of the intentionally designed air-gaps between the inductor core components, therefore establishing that the air-gap is a result effective variable for controlling reluctance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the air-gap sections of the core to arrive at the optimal range of total reluctance as ‘a factor of 20 to 80’ represents nothing more than the discovery of an optimal or desirable range that one would have arrived at through routine experimentation and optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 9. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic elements are mounted to the inductor by support linkages. (Schreiter, col. 3 line 9 “For this the array of a respective magnetic-flux guide has fastening means fixing the array on the outer surface of the coil. Other kinds of fastening, as gluing, welding, are also possible. If mechanical fastening means are used the same are preferably formed as support that can surround the array of the individual elements preferably on all sides and above and below. The array of the individual elements can be pressed, glued or also cast into this support.”)
Claim 16. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1, wherein the field concentrator is separated from the conductive casing through a layer of electrical insulator. (Schreiter, col. 3 line 19 “… the rods and the sheets that are possibly present can be cast with a material, especially a synthetic resin, to obtain a complete pack. This complete pack, for instance, can be cast into the support or can be inserted into the support as insert and can be fixed in the same”, where the synthetic resin corresponds to the claimed electrical insulator.)
Although Schreiter does not explicitly disclose an electrical insulator between the flux guides and the conductive casing, casting the rods and sheets into the support to obtain a complete pack such that a complete pack could entail having the flux guides 2 and support 5 be encased in synthetic resin, would lead to the claimed separation between the flux guide and the conductive casing with an electrical insulator as a consequence of complete pack’s structure.
Claims 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in further view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1, and in further view of Ladirat, US Patent Application Publication No. 20080225924 A1.
Claim 5. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1.
Modified Schreiter does not explicitly disclose wherein the inductor is a single turn inductor and the turn is composed of electrically parallel supplied strands.
Ladirat discloses wherein the inductor is a single turn inductor and the turn is composed of electrically parallel supplied strands. (Ladirat, Fig. 2 shows a plurality of single turn conductors arranged in parallel, wherein each single turn or loop extends between two terminals so that each coil only loops once around the circumference of the crucible once as opposed to multiple times, such as in multi-turn inductors.)
Schreiter, Pennander and Ladirat are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Modified Schreiter differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose that the inductor comprises of a single turn with electrically parallel supplied strands. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the coil of the inductor disclosed by Schreiter with the single turn conductors arranged in parallel disclosed by Ladirat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution in order to “obviate the difficulty of uniform heating (outlined in [0003]), specific to the inductors with a single loop and especially to a plurality of parallel conductors.”
Claim 6. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 3.
Modified Schreiter does not explicitly disclose wherein the inductor is a single turn inductor and the turn is composed of electrically parallel supplied strands and the strands are composed of portions tilted in the direction of the axis, alternately descending and ascending and distributed in two circular, concentric plies extending at identical heights along the axis, a first of the plies comprising all the ascending portions and a second of the plies all the descending portions.
Ladirat discloses wherein the inductor is a single turn inductor and the turn is composed of electrically parallel supplied strands and (Ladirat, Fig. 2 shows single turn conductors arranged in parallel between two terminals.)
the strands are composed of portions tilted in the direction of the axis, alternately descending and ascending and distributed in two circular, concentric plies extending at identical heights along the axis, a first of the plies comprising all ascending portions and a second of the plies comprising all descending portions. (Ladirat, Abstract “… consists of parallel but oblique conductors and forming a wave around the crucible, with at least one descending portion (9) and one ascending portion (10). The benefit from this arrangement is that the conductors are at an identical average height and all comprise a portion located at each heating height…)
Schreiter, Pennander and Ladirat are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Modified Schreiter differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose that the inductor comprises of a single turn with electrically parallel supplied strands. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the coil of the inductor disclosed by Schreiter with the single turn conductors arranged in parallel disclosed by Ladirat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution in order to “obviate the difficulty of uniform heating (outlined in [0003]), specific to the inductors with a single loop and especially to a plurality of parallel conductors.”
Claim 17. Modified Schreiter discloses use of the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1 in a furnace for vitrifying nuclear waste. (Ladirat, [0014] “Such induction furnaces are currently used for vitrification of nuclear waste materials.”)
The claim merely recites an intended use for the inductor and does not change the physical structure of the claimed invention; it has been established that applying a known device to a known use for which it is suitable is not patentable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the inductor taught by modified Schreiter to vitrify nuclear waste materials as taught by Ladirat since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (see MPEP § 2111.02 II).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1, in further view of in further view of Ladirat, US Patent Application Publication No. 20080225924 A1 and Bonzano et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 6011246 A.
Claim 7. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 5.
Modified Schreiter does not explicitly disclose wherein the ferromagnetic elements each extend in front of only one of the strands of the inductor.
Bonzano discloses wherein the ferromagnetic elements each extend in front of only one of the strands of the inductor. (Bonzano, Fig. 2 shows a coil 12 comprising two turns 13a and 13b, and element 34 for concentrating induced magnetic field for reinforcing heating at specific zones. Each element 34 only covers strand 13A or 13B.)
Schreiter, Pennander, Ladirat and Bonzano are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Modified Schreiter differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the ferromagnetic elements only extending in front of only one of the strands of the inductor. Bonanzo discloses the element 34 comprised of materials of high magnetic permeability, only extending in front of strand 13A or strand 13B of coil 12, each strand in a configuration similar to the lattice as taught by Ladirat. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air gapped ferromagnetic columns on an induction coil with strands in a lattice configuration as taught by modified Schreiter with the configuration used in element 34 as taught by Bonzano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “concentrate the magnetic field in such a way as to reinforce the heating of the median zone” of a workpiece and “avoid overheating of the lateral edges” of the workpiece (Bonanzo, col. 4 line 6 and col. 4 line 49).
Claim 18. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 6,
wherein when the turn is composed of ascending and descending portions distributed in two concentric plies, (Ladirat, [0004] “… comprise at least one descending portion and at least one ascending portion, the ascending portions being positioned in a first layer and the descending portions in a second layer, the layers being concentric around the crucible.”)
Modified Schreiter does not explicitly disclose the ferromagnetic elements each extend in front of only one of the descending or ascending portions of the radially outermost ply of the two concentric plies.
Bonzano discloses the ferromagnetic elements each extend in front of only one of the descending or ascending portions of the radially outermost ply of the two concentric plies. (Bonzano, Fig. 2 shows a coil 12 comprising two turns 13a and 13b, and element 34 for concentrating induced magnetic field for reinforcing heating at specific zones. Each element 34 only covers strand 13A or 13B.)
Schreiter, Pennander, Ladirat and Bonzano are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Modified Schreiter differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the ferromagnetic elements only extending in front of only one of the strands of the inductor. Bonanzo discloses the element 34 comprised of materials of high magnetic permeability, only extending in front of strand 13A or strand 13B of coil 12, each strand in a configuration similar to the lattice as taught by Ladirat. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air gapped ferromagnetic columns on an induction coil with strands in a lattice configuration as taught by modified Schreiter with the configuration used in element 34 as taught by Bonzano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “concentrate the magnetic field in such a way as to reinforce the heating of the median zone” of a workpiece and “avoid overheating of the lateral edges” of the workpiece (Bonanzo, col. 4 line 6 and col. 4 line 49).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in further view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1, and in further view of Ladirat, US Patent Application Publication No. 20080225924 A1, as evidenced by NPL (electricalengineering.stackexchange.com)
Claim 8. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1.
Modified Schreiter does not teach wherein the inductor is cooled by an inner fluid circulation.
Ladirat teaches wherein the inductor is cooled by an inner fluid circulation. (Ladirat, [0014] “The conductor 1 is normally cooled by a circuit of liquid…”)
Schreiter, Pennander and Ladirat are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Modified Schreiter differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the conductor being cooled by inner fluid circulation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that applying a hollow conductor for liquid cooling the coil of an induction furnace known in the art would have yielded predictable results, mainly a more efficient, direct cooling system that would allow the conductor to run longer without overheating or melting (see electricalengineering.stackexchange.com).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in further view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1, in further view of Ladirat, US Patent Application Publication No. 20080225924 A1 and Xu et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200258671 A1.
Claim 10. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 8, wherein the ferromagnetic elements are mounted to the inductor by support linkages and (Schreiter, col. 3 line 19 “According to a special embodiment the rods and the sheets that are possibly present can be cast with a material, especially a synthetic resin, to obtain a complete pack. This complete pack, for instance, can be cast into the support or can be inserted into the support as insert and can be fixed in the same.”)
the ferromagnetic elements are devoid of a particular cooling fluid circuit. (Schreiter, col. 3 line 33 “Preferably, with the inventive embodiment an additional cooling of the magnetic-flux guide, especially a water cooler arranged on the sides of the array, can be avoided”; the term “devoid” here is being taken to mean “to lack or be without something that is necessary or usual” as defined by dictionary.cambridge.org)
Modified Schreiter does not explicitly disclose the support linkages are overall thermally conductive and electrically insulating between the ferromagnetic elements and the inductor.
Xu discloses the support linkages are overall thermally conductive and electrically insulating between the ferromagnetic elements and the inductor, and (Xu, [0007] “… the inductor may further include a plug spacer disposed between a major surface of one of the core parts and the winding”; and [0035] “The spacers 430 can be made of thermally conductive material but also electrically insulate…”)
Schreiter, Pennander, Ladirat and Xu are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Modified Schreiter differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose the material or properties of the support that cover the columns. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support as disclosed by Schreiter with the thermally conductive and electrically insulating material disclosed by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because “As a result, heat is passed from the toroidal core parts 420 to the spacer 430a and dissipated through the wings 430b by air flow…” and “… to minimize eddy current heating.” (see Xu, [0035]).
Claims 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in further view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1, in further view of Ladirat, US Patent Application Publication No. 20080225924 A1, Xu et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200258671 A1, and Fishman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 5987054 A.
Claim 11. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 10.
Modified Schreiter does not explicitly disclose wherein the support linkages each comprise an adaptive part, a first side of which has a curvature identical to the inductor and is connected to the inductor through a linking layer, and a second side, opposite to the first side, on which at least one ferromagnetic element is installed and which has a curvature identical to said at least one ferromagnetic element.
Fishman discloses wherein the support linkages each comprise an adaptive part, a first side of which has a curvature identical to the inductor and (Fishman, Fig. 9 shows a curved guide plate 76 that support laminations 70 and provide the desired curvature.)
is connected to the inductor through a linking layer, and (Fishman, col. 7 line 21 “The shunts 60 are held in place by a system of horizontal bars 88…”, the horizontal bars 88 corresponding with the claimed linking layer.)
a second side, opposite to the first side, on which at least one ferromagnetic element is installed and which has a curvature identical to said at least one ferromagnetic element. (Fishman, Fig. 9 shows the laminations 68 of the pack 66 have inner edges 70 that conform to the curvature of guide plate 76.)
Schreiter, Pennander, Ladirat, Xu and Fishman are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support casing as taught by modified Schreiter with the addition of the curved guide plate 76 as taught by Fishman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the cores to conform to the different curvatures of the inductor coil and thus to the magnetic field, allowing the guides to more effectively deflect and concentrate the magnetic field the inductor produces.
Claim 12. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 11, wherein said installed ferromagnetic element is linked to the adaptive parts through a second linking layer. (Fishman, Fig. 8 and 9 show the cast aluminum 82 links the laminations with curved guide plate 76 of the mold 70.)
Claim 14. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 10.
Modified Schreiter does not disclose wherein the supports have less extension than the ferromagnetic elements in said direction of elongation, and the ferromagnetic elements have end edges in the direction of elongation that are clear of the supports.
Fishman discloses wherein the supports have less extension than the ferromagnetic elements in said direction of elongation, and (Fishman, Fig. 8 shows the components that make up the supports 74, 76, 78 and 82 are less extended than the ferromagnetic elements 66, stopping short of covering the ends 86 and 88.)
the ferromagnetic elements have end edges in the direction of elongation that are clear of the supports. (Fishman, Fig. 8-9 and col. 7 line 8 “The ends 86 and 88 and the side that faces the induction coil remain exposed.”)
Schreiter, Pennander, Ladirat, Xu, and Fishman are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic-flux guide and support of the inductor as taught by Schreiter with the open end support structure taught by Fishman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because according to the principles of electromagnetism and thermodynamics, leaving the ends of the iron laminations 68 would allow an unobstructed path for the magnetic flux to travel through the shielding, and would account for the thermal expansion of the iron laminations 68.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in further view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1, in further view of Ladirat, US Patent Application Publication No. 20080225924 A1, Xu et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200258671 A1, Fishman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 5987054 A and Synnestvedt, US Patent Application Publication No. 3704336 A.
Claim 13. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 11.
Modified Schreiter does not disclose wherein the support linkages comprise screws for attaching the ferromagnetic elements to the adaptive part.
Synnestvedt discloses wherein the support linkages comprise screws for attaching the ferromagnetic elements to the adaptive part. (Synnestvedt, Fig. 2 shows adjustable yoke bolts 35.)
Schreiter, Pennander, Ladirat, Xu, Fishman and Synnestvedt are analogous art because they are related to electromagnetic inductors. Modified Schreiter differs from the claimed invention only in that it uses compression rods 90 inserted through the horizontal bars 88 and bears against the cast aluminum portion 82 of the shunts 60, as taught by Fishman. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the compression rods 90 which hold the cores in place as disclosed by Fishman, with yoke bolts 35 as taught by Synnestvedt. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable in that both the compression rods and the yoke bolts serve to hold the cores and their housing in place.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiter et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10887953 B2 in further view of Pennander, US Patent Application Publication No. 20150340147 A1, in further view of Xiao et al., CN111785490A.
Claim 15. Modified Schreiter discloses the shielded electromagnetic inductor according to claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic elements are blocks or tiles in the form of flat quadrangles, (Schreiter, Fig 4-6 shows the array 3 of magnetic-flux guides 2 are flat rectangular blocks.)
Modified Schreiter does not explicitly disclose chamfered or provided with fillets at least at some corners of the quadrangle.
Xiao discloses chamfered or provided with fillets at least at some corners of the quadrangle. (Xiao, Summary of the Invention paragraph 1 “The upper and lower magnet yokes 11 , 12 may be respectively C-shaped. The magnet yokes being C-shaped actually defines that both shoulders on both sides of each magnet yoke each have a chamfer R 2 , and the chamfer R 2 may be preferably in a large rounded structure such that each magnet yoke is C-shaped as a whole.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cores disclosed by modified Schreiter with chamfered edges as disclosed by Xiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because “Both shoulders of each magnet yoke being chamfered can greatly reduce the magnetic flux leakage at there, thereby not only reducing the magnetic loss, and more importantly, avoiding serious eddy current damage to other surrounding parts containing magnet (such as pieces of iron, copper wires) caused by magnetic flux leakage when running at high power” (see Xiao, Summary of the Invention paragraph 1).
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 KRYSTENE NHELLE B MACEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-2380. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/K.B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights