DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in grounds of the new rejection.
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.
1 Claims 1, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Korony et al. (US 20110090665).
Regarding claim 1, Korony et al. (figures 1-7 and para 0085-0110) discloses an inductor (see para 0109-0110 and figure 7) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (see para 0092 and figure 1a) disposed on the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux; wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive plating (116) comprising a material at lest of gold(see para 0092 disclosing the material make-up of the conductive plating being gold)
Regarding claim 7, Korony et al. (figures 1a and para 0092) discloses wherein a least a portion of a surface of the inductor is not covered by the conductive material.
Regarding claim 8, Korony et al. (figures 1a and para 0092) discloses one or more connection pins (112/120), wherein the one or more connection pins are disposed within the least a portion of the surface of the inductor that is not covered by the conductive material.
Regarding claim 9, it would be an inherent characteristic of Isobe et al wherein the conductive material reduces a magnetic field intensity produced by the inductor by at least 10 dB since Isobe et al. discloses a similar structural makeup of the applicant claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Korony et al. (figures 1-7 and para 0085-0110) discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) layer (see para 0038); and at least one inductor package fixed to the PCB layer (see figure 6/ (figures 12-13), the at least inductor package including: an inductor (see figure 7) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (116 or 118) (see para 0082-0085) shielding disposed over at least a portion of a surface of the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux; wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive plating (116 or 118) comprising a material at lest of gold(see para 0092 disclosing the material make-up of the conductive plating being gold)
2 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Saito et al. (US 2010/0259353).
Regarding claim 1, Saito et al.. (figures 6-7 and para 0027-0034) discloses an inductor (see para 0029 and figure 6) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (8) disposed on the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux; wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive plating (8) comprising a material at lest of gold(see para 0034 disclosing the material make-up of the conductive plating being gold)
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.
3 Claims 1, 4, 6-9 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe et al. (US 20200090850) in view of Korony et al. (US 20110090665).
Regarding claim 1, Isobe et al. (figures 1-20 and para 0046-0090) discloses an inductor (100) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (30) (see para 0050-0052) disposed on the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux. Isobe et al. (para 050) discloses a conductive material comprising a plating material (30) being either copper or nickel but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductive plating material is gold.
Korony et al. (para 0092) discloses a teaching of a conductive plating (116) comprising a material at least of gold.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a conductive plating comprising a material at least of gold as taught by Korony et al. to the inductive device of Isobe et al. so as to design the inductive component with exceptional corrosion resistance and stable electrical conductivity over time since gold is more resistant to oxidizing or tarnishing when exposed to air and moisture
Regarding claim 4, Isobe et al. (para 0073/0079) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive plating applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor via electroplating. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “via electroplating” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 6, Isobe et al. (para 0050) discloses wherein the conductive material has a thickness of 5 μm to 0.2 mm on at least a portion of a surface of the inductor.
Regarding claim 7, Isobe et al. (figures 1-20) discloses wherein a least a portion of a surface of the inductor is not covered by the conductive material.(see also Korony et al. (figures 1a-1b)
Regarding claim 8, Isobe et al. (figures 1-20) discloses one or more connection pins (40), wherein the one or more connection pins are disposed within the least a portion of the surface of the inductor that is not covered by the conductive material.
Regarding claim 9, it would be an inherent characteristic of Isobe et al wherein the conductive material reduces a magnetic field intensity produced by the inductor by at least 10 dB since Isobe et al. discloses a similar structural makeup of the applicant claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, Isobe et al. (para 0073/0079) discloses a portion of a surface of the inductor via electroplating. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the inductor is metallized prior to the conductive plating being applied via electroplating” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 22, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the inductor is metallized via one of: vacuum coating, metal spraying, cathode sputtering, or chemical deposition.” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
4 Claims 1, 4, 8-11, 14, 16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US 20230292430) in view of Korony et al. (US 20110090665).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi et al. (figures 1-39 and para 0053-0150) discloses an inductor (13a)(see figure 6) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (15a) (see para 0082-0085) disposed on the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux. (see para 0085 disclosing the material make-up of the conductive material being copper)
Higuchi et al. (see para 0082-0090) discloses a conductive material comprising a conductive plating material (15a) being either copper or nickel but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductive plating material is gold.
Korony et al. (para 0092) discloses a teaching of a conductive plating (116) comprising a material at least of gold.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a conductive plating comprising a material at least of gold as taught by Korony et al. to the inductive device of Higuchi et al so as to design the inductive component with exceptional corrosion resistance and stable electrical conductivity over time since gold is more resistant to oxidizing or tarnishing when exposed to air and moisture
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi et al. (para 0091) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive plating applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor via electroplating. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “via electroplating” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 7, Higuchi et al (figures 6-39) discloses wherein a least a portion of a surface of the inductor is not covered by the conductive material.
Regarding claim 8, Higuchi et al. (figures 6-39) discloses one or more connection pins (134a), wherein the one Higuchi et al or more connection pins are disposed within the least a portion of the surface of the inductor that is not covered by the conductive material.
Regarding claim 9, it would be an inherent characteristic of Higuchi et al. wherein the conductive material reduces a magnetic field intensity produced by the inductor by at least 10 dB since Higuchi et al. discloses a similar structural makeup of the applicant claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Higuchi et al. (figures 34-35 and para 0140-0141) discloses wherein the inductor includes at least one of a rod core or a drum core.
Regarding claim 11, Higuchi et al. (figures 1-39 and para 0053-0150) discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) layer (see figure 6); and at least one inductor package fixed to the PCB layer (see figure 6), the at least one inductor package including: an inductor (13a)(see figure 6) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (15a) (see para 0082-0085) shielding disposed over at least a portion of a surface of the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux.
Higuchi et al. (see para 0082-0090) discloses a conductive material comprising a conductive plating material (15a) being either copper or nickel but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductive plating material is gold.
Korony et al. (para 0092) discloses a teaching of a conductive plating (116) comprising a material at least of gold.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a conductive plating comprising a material at least of gold as taught by Korony et al. to the inductive device of Higuchi et al so as to design the inductive component with exceptional corrosion resistance and stable electrical conductivity over time since gold is more resistant to oxidizing or tarnishing when exposed to air and moisture
Regarding claim 14, Higuchi et al. (para 0091) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive plating applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor via electroplating. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “via electroplating” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 16, Higuchi et al. (figures 1-39 and para 0081-0090) discloses at least a second inductor package fixed to the PCB layer (see figure 6), the second inductor package including: a second inductor (13b) that produces a second magnetic flux; and a second conductive material (15b) (see para 0082-0085) shielding disposed over at least a portion of a surface of the second inductor that provides a second reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the second magnetic flux. (see para 0085 disclosing the material make-up of the conductive material being copper)
Regarding claim 18, Higuchi et al. (para 0057-0058) discloses wherein the inductor package is included in one of an oscillator, a filter, a boost converter, or a buck converter.
Regarding claim 19, Higuchi et al. (figures 6-39) discloses one or more connection pins (134a), wherein: a least a portion of a surface of the inductor is not covered by the conductive material; and the one or more connection pins are disposed within the least a portion of the surface of the inductor that is not covered by the conductive material.
Regarding claim 20, Higuchi et al. (figures 34-35 and para 0140-0141) discloses wherein the inductor includes at least one of a rod core or a drum core.
Regarding claim 21, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the inductor is metallized prior to the conductive plating being applied via electroplating” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 22, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the inductor is metallized via one of: vacuum coating, metal spraying, cathode sputtering, or chemical deposition.” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
5 Claims 2, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US 20230292430) in view of Korony et al. (US 20110090665) and Shijo et al. (US 2014025375)
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi et al. (para 0091) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive coating applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor. (see para 0091 disclosing wherein a conductive coating can be applied on the inductor device instead of using a conductive plate); Higuchi et al.is silent as to whether or not the coating is a paint.
Shijo et al. (0038) discloses a teaching wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint as taught by Shijo et al to the inductive device of Higuchi et al as to create an effective shield against unwanted EMI/RFI and provide a quick and reliable solution for repairing damaged portions of the inductive device without the need for heat or specialized equipment.
Regarding claim 12, Higuchi et al. (para 0091) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive coating applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor. (see para 0091 disclosing wherein a conductive coating can be applied on the inductor device instead of using a conductive plate); Higuchi et al.is silent as to whether or not the coating is a paint.
Shijo et al. (0038) discloses a teaching wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint as taught by Shijo et al to the inductive device of Higuchi et al as to create an effective shield against unwanted EMI/RFI and provide a quick and reliable solution for repairing damaged portions of the inductive device without the need for heat or specialized equipment.
Regarding claim 17, Higuchi et al. (para 0081-0085/0091) discloses wherein the conductive material shielding is conductive plating and the second conductive material is a conductive coating (see para 0091). Higuchi et al.is silent as to whether or not the coating is a paint.
Shijo et al. (0038) discloses a teaching wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint as taught by Shijo et al. to the inductive device of Higuchi et al as to create an effective shield against unwanted EMI/RFI and provide a quick and reliable solution for repairing damaged portions of the inductive device without the need for heat or specialized equipment. Also, Higuchi et al. (figures 6-39) discloses various location wherein the conductive locations wherein the conductive material can be placed on various locations of the first and second inductor packages. Designing wherein the conductive material shielding is conductive plating and the second conductive material is a conductive paint would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use. Such as to allow for improved durability, corrosion protection and enabling the use of lighter, less expensive plastic enclosures which saves on weight/size.
6 Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US 20230292430) in view of Shijo et al. (US 2014025375).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi et al. (figures 1-39 and para 0053-0150) discloses an inductor (13a)(see figure 6) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (see para 0091) disposed on the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux.
Higuchi et al. (para 0091) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive coating applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor. (see para 0091 disclosing wherein a conductive coating can be applied on the inductor device instead of using a conductive plate); Higuchi et al.is silent as to whether or not the coating is a paint containing at least a conductive carbon or graphite
Shijo et al. (0038) discloses a teaching wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint as taught by Shijo et al to the inductive device of Higuchi et al as to create an effective shield against unwanted EMI/RFI and provide a quick and reliable solution for repairing damaged portions of the inductive device without the need for heat or specialized equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Shijo et al. (0038) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises the conductive paint applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor.
Regarding claim 11, Higuchi et al. (figures 1-39 and para 0053-0150) discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) layer (see figure 6); and at least one inductor package fixed to the PCB layer (see figure 6), the at least one inductor package including: an inductor (13a)(see figure 6) that produces a first magnetic flux; and a conductive material (see para 0091) shielding disposed over at least a portion of a surface of the inductor that provides a reflective magnetic flux that at least partially cancels the first magnetic flux.
Higuchi et al. (para 0091) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive coating applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor. (see para 0091 disclosing wherein a conductive coating can be applied on the inductor device instead of using a conductive plate); Higuchi et al.is silent as to whether or not the coating is a paint containing at least a conductive carbon or graphite
Shijo et al. (0038) discloses a teaching wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint as taught by Shijo et al to the inductive device of Higuchi et al as to create an effective shield against unwanted EMI/RFI and provide a quick and reliable solution for repairing damaged portions of the inductive device without the need for heat or specialized equipment.
Regarding claim 12, Shijo et al. (0038) discloses wherein the conductive material comprises the conductive paint applied to at least a portion of a surface of the inductor.
Regarding claim 17, Higuchi et al. (para 0081-0085/0091) discloses wherein the conductive material shielding is conductive plating and the second conductive material is a conductive coating (see para 0091). Higuchi et al.is silent as to whether or not the coating is a paint.
Shijo et al. (0038) discloses a teaching wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the conductive coating can be a conducive paint as taught by Shijo et al. to the inductive device of Higuchi et al as to create an effective shield against unwanted EMI/RFI and provide a quick and reliable solution for repairing damaged portions of the inductive device without the need for heat or specialized equipment. Also, Higuchi et al. (figures 6-39) discloses various location wherein the conductive locations wherein the conductive material can be placed on various locations of the first and second inductor packages. Designing wherein the conductive material shielding is conductive plating and the second conductive material is a conductive paint would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use. Such as to allow for improved durability, corrosion protection and enabling the use of lighter, less expensive plastic enclosures which saves on weight/size.
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 RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights