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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-9 and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 10-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, recites “the center legs” should be --the first center leg and the second center leg--.
Claim 5, line 2, recites “the center legs” should be --the first center leg and the second center leg--.
Claim 11 recites the term “cross section” should be --cross section area--.
Claim 12 recites the term “cross sections” should be --cross section areas--.
Claim 13 recites the term “cross sections” should be --cross section areas--.
Claim 14, line 3, recites “the center legs” should be --the first center leg and the second center leg--.
Claim 15, line 2, recites “a shared leg” should be --the shared leg--.
Claim 18, line 2, recites “0.001 mm2” should be --0.001 mm--.
Claim 21, line 2, recites “the coils” should be --the first coil and the second coil--.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 11, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a first vertical gap in the second center leg” is indefinite and unclear since claim 1 already recited “a first gap in the second center leg”. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 3 recites “the vertical gap” is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 3 recites “the ratio between the height of the vertical gap and the distance between the base and the top is between 0% and 80%” is indefinite and unclear since the ratio cannot be 0%.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the ratio" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the height" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the ratio" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the heights" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the vertical gaps” in line 2 is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the heights" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the vertical gaps” in line 3 is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 11 recites “each center leg and shared leg has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top - a cross section” is unclear based on the claim limitation structure.
Claim 11 recites “a center leg” is indefinite and unclear since there is “a first center leg” and “a second center leg” in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “each shared leg” is indefinite and unclear since there is “a shared leg” in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the heights" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the vertical gaps” in line 2 is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the heights" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the vertical gaps” in line 3 is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the heights" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the gaps" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “a gap” in line 3 is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 15 recites “a center leg” in line 3 is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 18 recites “a vertical gap” in line 2 is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-11, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meisei [JP 3207529 U].
Regarding Claim 1, Meisei shows a coupled inductor (Fig. 6 with teachings from Figs. 1-3 and 7), comprising
- a base (bottom portion of element 1) and a top (top portion of element 1),
- a shared leg (middle leg of element 1) between the base and the top (see Fig. 6),
- a first center leg (left center leg) between the base and the top (see Fig. 6) and a second center leg (right center leg) between the base and the top (see Fig. 6),
- a first vertical gap (left element 4) in the first center leg (left center leg, see Fig. 6 with teachings from Fig. 1) and/or a first gap (right element 4) in the second center leg (right center leg, see Fig. 6 with teachings from Fig. 1),
- a first coil (left element 3) and a second coil (right element 3), wherein
- the first coil (left element 3) is wound around the first center leg (left center leg, see Fig. 6 with teachings from Fig. 1),
- the second coil (right element 3) is wound around the second center leg (right center leg, see Fig. 6 with teachings from Fig. 1),
- the shared leg (middle leg of element 1) is arranged between the center legs (see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Meisei shows a first vertical gap (left element 4) in the first center leg (left center leg, see Fig. 6 with teachings from Fig. 1) and a first vertical gap (right element 4) in the second center leg (right center leg, see Fig. 6 with teachings from Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Meisei shows the ratio between the height of the vertical gap (d1 = 0.8 mm) and the distance between the base and the top (distance between bottom portion of element 1 and top portion of element 1 is 30 mm) is between 0% and 80% (0.8/30 = 0.026 = 2.6%, Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 10, Meisei shows the number of center legs is N with N = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or a higher even number (see Fig. 6, N = 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Meisei shows - each center leg (left center leg, right center leg) and shared leg (middle leg) has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top (see Fig. 6) - a cross section (see Fig. 6) and - the cross section of a center leg is smaller than the cross section of each shared leg (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 18, Meisei shows a vertical gap (d1 or d2) has a height (0.8 mm or 1.0 mm) between 0.001 mm2 and 10 mm (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 20, Meisei shows a height between 3 and 150 mm (divided magnetic core is 4 mm or top plate portion is 5 mm or dimension of magnetic core around which the coil is wound is 15 mm, Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 21, Meisei shows the coils (3) comprise or consist of a material selected from Cu, Al, Ag and an alloy thereof (copper, Paragraph [0013]).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10, 14-15, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. [JP 2019-079944].
Regarding Claim 1, Zheng et al. shows a coupled inductor (Figs. 5-7 with teachings from Figs. 1-3 and 8-9), comprising
- a base (67) and a top (68),
- a shared leg (66) between the base and the top (see Figs. 5-7),
- a first center leg (61) between the base and the top (see Figs. 5-7) and a second center leg (63) between the base and the top (see Figs. 5-7),
- a first vertical gap (61g) in the first center leg (61, see Figs. 5-7) and/or a first gap (63g) in the second center leg (63, see Figs. 5-7, Paragraph [0067]),
- a first coil (1) and a second coil (3), wherein
- the first coil (1) is wound around the first center leg (61, see Figs. 5-7),
- the second coil (3) is wound around the second center leg (63, see Figs. 5-7),
- the shared leg (66) is arranged between the center legs (see Figs. 5-7).
Regarding Claim 2, Zheng et al. shows a first vertical gap (61g) in the first center leg (61, see Figs. 5-7) and a first vertical gap (63g) in the second center leg (63, see Figs. 5-7, Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding Claim 4, Zheng et al. shows a vertical gap (66g) in the shared leg (66).
Regarding Claim 5, Zheng et al. shows the ratio between the sum of the heights (0.13*4 = 0.52 mm) of the vertical gaps (61g, 62g, 63g, 64g) in the center legs (61, 62, 63, 64) and the sum of the heights (2 mm) of the vertical gaps (66g) in the shared leg (66) is between 0.01% and 50% (0.52/2 = 0.26 = 26%, Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 10, Zheng et al. shows the number of center legs is N with N = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or a higher even number (see Figs. 5-7, N = 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Zheng et al. shows the sum of the heights (2 mm) of the vertical gaps (66g) of a shared leg (66) is larger than the sum of the heights (0.13*4 = 0.52 mm) of the vertical gaps (61g, 62g, 63g, 64g) of the center legs (61, 62, 63, 64, Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 15, Zheng et al. shows the sum of the heights (2 mm) of the gaps (66g) of a shared leg (66) is smaller than 20 times the height (0.13 mm) of a gap (61g) of a center leg (61, 2 mm is smaller than 0.13 mm*20 which is 2 mm is smaller than 2.6 mm, Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 18, Zheng et al. shows a vertical gap (66g or 61g) has a height (2 mm or 0.13 mm) between 0.001 mm2 and 10 mm (Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 21, Zheng et al. shows the coils (3) comprise or consist of a material selected from Cu, Al, Ag and an alloy thereof (copper, Paragraph [0036]).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Shao et al. [CN 103730230].
Regarding Claim 3, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the ratio between the height of the vertical gap and the distance between the base and the top is between 0% and 80%.
Shao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 3-8) teaching and suggesting the ratio between the height of the vertical gap (632) and the distance between the base and the top is between 0% and 80% (the height of element 632 is 1/5 of the total length of elements 614/314 which is 0.2/(1+0.2) = 0.16 = 16% or [0.2/(1+0.2)]/2 = 0.08 = 8% or 0.2/(1+1+0.2) = 0.09 = 9%, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of the vertical gap and the distance between the base and the top is between 0% and 80% as taught by Shao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve better coupling effect between the windings (see English translation).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the height of the vertical gap and the distance between the base and the top is between 0% and 80%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve better coupling effect between the windings, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a vertical gap in the shared leg.
Shao et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 3-8) teaching and suggesting a vertical gap (634) in the shared leg (616, see Fig. 6(c)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a vertical gap in the shared leg as taught by Shao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve better coupling effect between the windings and preventing saturation (see English translation).
Claim(s) 5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei in view of Zheng et al. [WO 2019/082489] (hereinafter as “Zheng ‘489”).
Regarding Claim 5, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the ratio between the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps in the center legs and the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps in the shared leg is between 0.01% and 50%.
Zheng ‘489 shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the ratio between the sum of the heights (0.13*2 = 0.26 mm) of the vertical gaps (31g, 32g) in the center legs (31, 32) and the sum of the heights (2 mm) of the vertical gaps (33g) in the shared leg (33) is between 0.01% and 50% (0.26/2 = 0.13 = 13%, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio between the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps in the center legs and the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps in the shared leg is between 0.01% and 50% as taught by Zheng ‘489 for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei to achieve desirable coupling factor and saturation (see English translation).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio between the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps in the center legs and the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps in the shared leg is between 0.01% and 50%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable coupling factor and saturation, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 14, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps of a shared leg is larger than the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps of the center legs.
Zheng ‘489 shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the sum of the heights (2 mm) of the vertical gaps (33g) of a shared leg (33) is larger than the sum of the heights (0.13*2 = 0.26 mm) of the vertical gaps (31g, 32g) of the center legs (31, 32, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps of a shared leg is larger than the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps of the center legs as taught by Zheng ‘489 for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei to achieve desirable coupling factor and saturation (see English translation).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps of a shared leg is larger than the sum of the heights of the vertical gaps of the center legs, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable coupling factor and saturation, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the sum of the heights of the gaps of a shared leg is smaller than 20 times the height of a gap of a center leg.
Zheng ‘489 shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the sum of the heights (2 mm) of the gaps (33g) of a shared leg (33) is smaller than 20 times the height (0.13 mm) of a gap (31g) of a center leg (31, 2 mm is smaller than 0.13 mm*20 which is 2 mm is smaller than 2.6 mm, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the sum of the heights of the gaps of a shared leg is smaller than 20 times the height of a gap of a center leg as taught by Zheng ‘489 for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei to achieve desirable coupling factor and saturation (see English translation).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sum of the heights of the gaps of a shared leg is smaller than 20 times the height of a gap of a center leg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable coupling factor and saturation, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Sato et al. [JP 2016-058513].
Regarding Claim 11, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show - each center leg and shared leg has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top - a cross section and - the cross section of a center leg is smaller than the cross section of each shared leg.
Sato et al. shows a device (Figs. 1(a)-1(g)) teaching and suggesting - each center leg (2, 3, 4, 5) and shared leg (1) has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top (see Figs. 1(a)-1(g)) - a cross section (see Figs. 1(a)-1(g)) and - the cross section of a center leg (2) is smaller than the cross section of each shared leg (1, Paragraph [0031], cross section ratio is 1:3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have - each center leg and shared leg has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top - a cross section and - the cross section of a center leg is smaller than the cross section of each shared leg as taught by Sato et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve high output, low noise, and improvement in design freedom (Abstract, Advantage, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sato et al. shows - the sum of the cross sections of all center legs (2, 3, 4, 5) is larger than the sum of the cross sections of all shared legs (1, Paragraph [0031], cross section ratio is 1:1:1:1:3 is 4 is larger than 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Sato et al. shows - the sum of the cross sections of all shared legs (1) is larger than 0.5 times the sum of the cross sections of all center legs (2, 3, 4, 5, Paragraph [0031], cross section ratio is 3:1:1:1:1 is 3 is larger than 0.5*4 which is 3 is larger than 2).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Nagaoka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0240588].
Regarding Claim 11, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show - each center leg and shared leg has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top - a cross section and - the cross section of a center leg is smaller than the cross section of each shared leg.
Nagaoka et al. shows a device (Fig. 9) teaching and suggesting - each center leg (10b, 10c) and shared leg (10a) has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top (see Fig. 9) - a cross section (see Fig. 9) and - the cross section (Ac) of a center leg (10c) is smaller than the cross section (Aa) of each shared leg (10a, Paragraph [0065], element Ac is 1 and element Aa is 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have - each center leg and shared leg has - at a specific vertical position between the base and the top - a cross section and - the cross section of a center leg is smaller than the cross section of each shared leg as taught by Nagaoka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and coupling due to controlling of leakage inductance (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 12, Nagaoka et al. shows - the sum of the cross sections (Ab, Ac) of all center legs (10b, 10c) is larger than the sum of the cross sections (Aa) of all shared legs (10a, Paragraph [0065], sum of elements Ab, Ac is 3 is larger than element Aa is 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Nagaoka et al. shows - the sum of the cross sections of all shared legs (10a) is larger than 0.5 times the sum of the cross sections of all center legs (10b, 10c, Paragraph [0065], element Aa is 2 is larger than 0.5*3 which is 2 is larger than 1.5).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Inaba et al. [WO 2018/056049].
Regarding Claim 16, Meisei OR Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the base and/or the top have one or more chamfered edges or notches.
Inaba et al. shows a device (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting the base (35) and/or the top have one or more chamfered edges or notches (38).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the base and/or the top have one or more chamfered edges or notches as taught by Inaba et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to have a compact design to reduce weight of the device (see English translation).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Winkler et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0287512].
Regarding Claim 17, Meisei OR Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show a shared leg protrudes - in a lateral direction - out of the area of the base.
Winkler et al. shows a device (Figs. 6B-6C) teaching and suggesting a shared leg (350) protrudes - in a lateral direction - out of the area of the base (see Figs. 6B-6C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a shared leg protrudes - in a lateral direction - out of the area of the base as taught by Winkler et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and coupling.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Otake et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0115851].
Regarding Claim 17, Meisei OR Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show a shared leg protrudes - in a lateral direction - out of the area of the base.
Otake et al. shows a device (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting a shared leg (43b) protrudes - in a lateral direction - out of the area of the base (see Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a shared leg protrudes - in a lateral direction - out of the area of the base as taught by Otake et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and compact coupling with desired inductance that contribute to reducing the size of the entire power supply device (Paragraph [0051]).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Namikawa [JP 2015-099818].
Regarding Claim 19, Meisei OR Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the base and the top has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2.
Namikawa shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the base (11) and the top (15) has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2 (a*(a+b+2a+b+a) = a*(4a+2b) and a = b = 20 mm therefore 20*(6*20) = 2400 mm2, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the base and the top has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2 as taught by Namikawa for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve desirable coupling factor and improve material yield (see English translation).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the base and the top has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable coupling factor and improve material yield, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 20, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show having a height between 3 and 150 mm.
Namikawa shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting having a height (20 mm or 60 mm) between 3 and 150 mm (see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a height between 3 and 150 mm as taught by Namikawa for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve desirable coupling factor and improve material yield (see English translation).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a height between 3 and 150 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable coupling factor and improve material yield, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisei OR Zheng et al. in view of Baumann et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0140775].
Regarding Claim 19, Meisei OR Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the base and the top has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2.
Baumann et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-5) teaching and suggesting the base (bottom element 22) and the top (top element 22) has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2 (a*t = 25*15 = 375 mm2, Paragraph [0034]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the base and the top has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2 as taught by Baumann et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve desirable coupling factor with reduction in resistive losses, eddy current losses, skin effects and proximity effect (Paragraph [0013]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the base and the top has an area between 18 and 45000 mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable coupling factor with reduction in resistive losses, eddy current losses, skin effects and proximity effect, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 20, Meisei shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Zheng et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show having a height between 3 and 150 mm.
Baumann et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-5) teaching and suggesting having a height (h = 13.6 mm) between 3 and 150 mm (Paragraph [0034]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a height between 3 and 150 mm as taught by Baumann et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Meisei OR Zheng et al. to achieve desirable coupling factor with reduction in resistive losses, eddy current losses, skin effects and proximity effect (Paragraph [0013]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a height between 3 and 150 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable coupling factor with reduction in resistive losses, eddy current losses, skin effects and proximity effect, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached at (571)272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights