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 Group I, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “at least two carrier sub-bodies” (claims 14-15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: -- Electrical coil component manufacturing method--.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: that the specification should not refer to the claim (see page 1, ¶ [0005])
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Hyphen”- “(claim 1, lines 6 and 8) should be removed.
“A method for producing a component provided with at least one electrically conductive conductor body, wherein the conductor body is surrounded at least in portions, in particular largely, in an integrally bonded and/or interlocking fashion by an injection-molded body formed from an injection-molding material, the method comprising:” (preamble claim 1, lines 1-5) is awkwardly worded and should be rewritten into the following method claim limitations (see method formats below):
-- A method for producing a component comprising steps of:”—
-- providing at least one electrically conductive conductor body, a carrier body includes a receiving space;
Integrally bonding portions of the conductor body to an injection molded body, wherein the injection molded body is formed by injection-molding material;”--
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 1-22 is/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.
Note: The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
many terms or phrases is/are unclear confusing and not understood the following are examples:
The phrase: ” - receiving the conductor body at least in portions in or on a receiving region of a carrier body, which receiving region delimits a receiving space,”(claim 1, lines 6-7) awkwardly worded and confusing should be updated to:
-- “inserting portions of the at least one conductor body at least in the receiving space region of the carrier body;”--, as so to reflect changes as suggested under claim objection to above.
“- encapsulating the carrier body, provided with the conductor body, at least in portions with the injection-molding material to form a component comprising at least the conductor body, the carrier body and the injection-molded body.” (claim 1, lines 8-10) is unclear and confusing and should be rewritten as following:
--" encapsulating the carrier body with the at least in portions of the at least the conductor body inserted thereto to form the component.”--
The phrase:” “after and/or during the receiving of the conductor body” (claim 2, line 1); “ in or on” the carrier body” (claim 2, line 2); “that is similar or identical” (claim 2, line 5) is/are unclear and confusing and should be rewritten into positively method claim format also “and/or, and or “ should be more specific since it is unclear as to exactly taken place since claim is in alternative forms.
“the geometric shape of the carrier body” (claim 2, lines 2-3), “the modification” (claim 2, line 3) “the deformation” (claim 2, line 5-6) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“is modified” (claim 2, line 3)” not a positive method limitation the use of: ”modifying the carrier body into a geometric shape of” is suggested
“are assembled” (claim 4, line 2) should be rewritten into method claim format.
“its” (claim 4, line 3) should be further define to what structure feature is being in reference to as “its”.
“is bent”(claim 4, line 4) is not positively method limitation. Also please provide an active method such as “bending the carrier body - - -“.
Similar to claim 2 above applied to claims 3-14 where a number of “and/or” and “or” has been used which raise same issues as claim 2 above. Further, it is suggested that rewritten claims 3-13 into positively method limitation for clarity of the inventive method invention,
“a carrier body is used” (claim 15-18, line 1) is not clear and whether this is as same as that in line 5 of base claim.
Similar to claim 15 applied to claims 16-18, line 1 (see above.
“at least one conductor body” (claim 19, line 1) is unclear and confusing in that it is not known whether this directed to one as previous cited in base claim 1, line 1-2? the use of: -- “the at least one conductor body”- - to which it is directed to.
“in or on” (claim 20, line 2) should be more specific since it is not known if the conductive is in or on. It is suggested “or on” should be deleted for clarity of the method claim format.
“the modification” (claim 21, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
whether or not “a first conductor body” (claim 22, line 1) as same as that” at least on conductive body” in claim 1, line 1-2?
“is encapsulated” (claim 22, line 4) is not positively method claim formats.
whether or not “an injection molding material” (claim 22, lines 4-5) as same as that in lines 3-4.
The above are examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noticed by the Examiner. Applicant is respectfully asked to review the application to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may aware in above pending rejected above claims.
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) 1-10, 14-22 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Emezaki et al (DE 3741033).
Emezaki et al discloses the claimed method of the invention comprising:
- receiving the conductor body as coil 3/4 at least in portions in a receiving region of a carrier body 2, which receiving region delimits a receiving space (freely moving in the housing 2, see Fig. 4, and discussion under the abstract about lines 1-8);
PNG
media_image1.png
293
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- encapsulating the carrier body of coil 3/4, provided with the conductor body, at least in portions with the injection-molding material to form a component comprising at least the conductor body, the carrier body and the injection-molded body (see discussion under abstract regarding to lines 11-13 of the abstract, where the resins is introduced into the housing by as known as molding or injection molding to encapsulated the at least one conductive coils 3/4, respectively).
Note that the following preamble recites:” A method for producing a component provided with at least one electrically conductive conductor body, wherein the conductor body is surrounded at least in portions, in particular largely, in an integrally bonded and/or interlocking fashion by an injection-molded body formed from an injection-molding material, the method comprising:” (see preamble of claim 1, line 1-5) when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The Emezaki et al further discloses regarding:
Claim 2, as best under stood is met by the Emezaki et al since no method inventive feature existed in this claim base on the present claim formats (see section of 112 above).
(see also Fig. 4 which depict after the encapsulated by resin 7 the carrier body or housing does not change in shape).
As applied to claim 3, refer to Fig. 4 where the space that house 7 is represented the claimed body volume as claimed.
As applied to claim 4 appears to met by the applied prior art since no further method limitation existed in claim 4 (see section of 112 above).
As applied to claim 5, as best understood is also met by the applied reference since no positive method step existed in claim 5 only shape configurations and many terms or phrases associate with “and/or” and alternative format “or” which make claim unclear, confusing and indefinite (see section of 112 above).
Claims 6-10 as best understood is/are rejected base on same rationale set forth above in claim 5.
As applied to claims 14-15, the Emezaki et al further discloses the at least two carrier body (see Fig. 4 which depict the at least two sub-carrier bodies such as 109 and 2.
As applied to claim 16, refer to portion of 109 and 2 being an L-shaped (see Fig. 4). Also, no method inventive when depart from the teaching of the Emezaki et al above.
As applied to claims 17-20 appears to meet by the Emezaki et al for same rationale as discussed above because no inventive effort found in these claims only structure limitation which does not further limit the method.
As applied to claim 22, the Emezaki et al discloses substantially structure cited in claims 21-22 includes the movement of the two subcarrier 109, 2 to form interlock connection portions 2A/109B (see Fig. 4, respectively). Furthermore, claims above appears to be in structure formats which does not further limit the claimed method since no effort method features existed in these claims (see also 112 issues set forth above).
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) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emezaki et al in view of Kawai (20170342954).
As applied to claim 11, the Emezaki as relied upon above does not particular discloses “where the conductive body is “used which is designed as stranded wire body” is formed at least from a group of conductive individually wires” is not a positively method limitation. The Kawai discloses the above (see Figs 5-6 where the conductive body is in form of stranded wire 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to employ the Kawai’s teaching as noted above onto invention of Emezaki et al in order to form the device having the wire type configuration above facilitate of operation would result includes cost saving.
Further regarding “preferably the stranded wire body has at least in portions, in particular completely, at least one group of electrically conductive individual wires which are designed as high-frequency stranded wires and/or high-voltage stranded wires and/or as individual wires insulated from one another by an insulating layer, in particular by means of an insulating layer designed as a lacquer layer” (claim 11,lines 4-7) is/are awkwardly worded and confusing appears to be directed to structure of the wires and/or individual wires which is not positive method limitation.
Similar to claim 11 applied to claim 12-13 which is awkwardly worded and confusing appears to be directed to structure of the wires and/or individual wires which does not further limit the claimed method, since no inventive effort method features existed in these claims when depart from Emezaki et al in view of Kawai set forth above (see above section of 112).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
6/22/26
Prosecution Insights