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 with traverse of Group I, Species E, and claims 1-4 and 9-11 in the reply filed on 07/16/20026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all of the claims are properly presented in the same application, there would be no serious burden on the examiner to examine the entire application and all claims should be examined. This is not found persuasive because Group I lacks the “forming the molded resin portion, a pressure of 15MPa or more…” feature of Group II and applicant’s withdrawn claims have different technical features that the elected species lacks. Nonetheless, in the spirit of compact prosecution, the species restriction is hereby withdrawn. The Groups restriction is maintained. Accordingly, in this Office action, claims 1-11 are fully examined, and claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 09/22/2023 are acceptable.
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 1-5, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusawake et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0131052 A1, hereinafter “Kusawake”) in view of Yoshikawa (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2014/0133204) and Teranishi et al. (JP 09-035965).
With respect to claim 1, Kusawake teaches a reactor (FIG. 8) comprising:
a coil 2;
a magnetic core 3;
a molded resin portion (resin inside case 6, para. [0078]); and
a body 31g, wherein the coil includes one winding portion 2C,
the magnetic core includes a first core piece (front core piece 32) and a second core piece (back core piece 32) combined with each other,
at least either the first core piece or the second core piece is constituted by a molded body of a composite material in which a soft magnetic powder is dispersed in a resin (“magnetic powder and resin” para. [0139]),
the magnetic core includes a middle core portion 31, two side core portions 3C and 3D, and two end core portions (yokes), in a state where the first core piece and the second core piece are combined,
the middle core portion includes a portion arranged inside the winding portion,
the two side core portions are arranged side by side with the middle core portion on outward sides of the winding portion,
the two end core portions are arranged in such a manner as to connect the middle core portion to the two side core portions on outward sides of end portions of the winding portion,
the molded resin portion covers at least part of the magnetic core,
the body is provided in such a manner as to divide the middle core portion at an intermediate point or divide at least one of boundaries between the middle core portion and the end core portions (paras. [0078], [0139] and [0117]).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kusawake does not expressly teach
an elastic body.
Yoshikawa teaches a reactor 10 (FIG. 3) comprising:
a molded resin portion (“sealing resin” para. [0140]); and
an elastic body 31g (para. [0137]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the elastic body as taught by Yoshikawa to the reactor of Kusawake to adjust the gap length or absorb a certain amount of dimension error (para. [0137]).
Kusawake does not also expressly teach
a ratio of the area of the elastic body to a cross-sectional area of the middle core portion is over 100% and 110% or less,
the cross-sectional area of the middle core portion being the area of a cross-section of the middle core portion taken along a direction orthogonal to a lengthwise direction of the middle core portion, and
the area of the elastic body being the area of a region defined by an outer edge of the elastic body including a face of the elastic body facing the middle core portion when the elastic body is in a compressed state.
Teranishi teaches a reactor (FIG. 2) comprising:
a ratio of the area of the body 9 to a cross-sectional area of the middle core portion 3 or 40 is over 100% and 110% or less,
the cross-sectional area of the middle core portion being the area of a cross-section of the middle core portion taken along a direction orthogonal to a lengthwise direction of the middle core portion, and
the area of the body being the area of a region defined by an outer edge of the elastic body including a face of the elastic body facing the middle core portion when the elastic body is in a compressed state (para. [0030]).
PNG
media_image2.png
346
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen in FIG. 5, the body 9 extends slightly beyond the left and right edges of the middle core portion. Therefore, Teranishi would have the claimed ratio. Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the area ratio as taught by Teranishi to the reactor of Kusawake to improve mechanical stability.
With respect to claim 2, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1,
wherein the two side core portions and the two end core portions are continuous with each other (Kusawake, para. [0117]).
With respect to claim 3, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1,
wherein a ratio of the area of the elastic body to a predetermined area is 70% or more,
the predetermined area being obtained by length A × length B,
the length A being the length of the middle core portion along a direction orthogonal to both a lengthwise direction of the middle core portion and a direction in which the middle core portion and the two side core portions are side by side,
the length B being a distance between inward faces of the two side core portions, and
the area of the elastic body being the area of a face of the elastic body facing the middle core portion when the elastic body is in a compressed state (Teranishi, para. [0030]).
With respect to claim 4, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1,
wherein the elastic body is made of silicone rubber or butyl rubber (Yoshikawa, para. [0137]).
With respect to claim 5, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1,
wherein the first core piece and the second core piece are each an E-shaped member including one of the two end core portions, a portion of the middle core portion, and a portion of each of the two side core portions (Kusawake, para. [0117]).
With respect to claim 7, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1,
wherein the first core piece is an E-shaped member including one of the two end core portions, the middle core portion, and each of the two side core portions, and
the second core piece is an I-shaped member including another one of the two end core portions (Teranishi, para. [0030]).
With respect to claim 10, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches a converter comprising the reactor according to claim 1 (Kusawake, para. [0143]).
With respect to claim 11, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches a power conversion device comprising the converter according to claim 10 (Kusawake, para. [0143]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of A. R. Cornell (U.S. Patent No. 3,209,294).
With respect to claim 6, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1,
wherein the first core piece is an E-shaped member including one of the two end core portions, a portion of the middle core portion, and each of the two side core portions (Kusawake, para. [0137]). Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi does not expressly teach
the second core piece is a T-shaped member including another one of the two end core portions, and a remaining portion of the middle core portion.
Cornell teaches a reactor (Fig. 3),
wherein the first core piece 50 is an E-shaped member including one of the two end core portions, a portion of the middle core portion, and each of the two side core portions, and
the second core piece 54 is a T-shaped member including another one of the two end core portions, and a remaining portion of the middle core portion (col. 3, lines 2-6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the ET core pieces as taught by Cornell to the reactor of Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi to fasten the core pieces in a known fashion to maintain the adjustment of the air gap (col. 3, lines 9-11).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2023/0100669 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1,
wherein the first core piece is an E-shaped member including one of the two end core portions, the middle core portion, and a portion of each of the two side core portions (Kusawake, para. [0137]). Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi does not expressly teach
the second core piece is a U-shaped member including another one of the two end core portions, and a remaining portion of each of the two side core portions.
Yamamoto teaches a reactor 1 (FIG. 6)
wherein the first core piece 3f is an E-shaped member including one of the two end core portions, the middle core portion, and a portion of each of the two side core portions, and
the second core piece 3s is a U-shaped member including another one of the two end core portions, and a remaining portion of each of the two side core portions (paras. [0178] and [0182]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the EU core pieces as taught by Yamamoto to the reactor of Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi to easily adjust inductance and heat dissipation without increasing the size of the reactor (para. [0187]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saitoh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,345,209, hereinafter “Saitoh”).
With respect to claim 9, Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi teaches the reactor according to claim 1. Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi does not expressly teach
wherein the first core piece is an O-shaped member including each of the two end core portions and each of the two side core portions, and
the second core piece is an I-shaped member including the middle core portion.
Saitoh teaches a reactor (FIG. 1),
wherein the first core piece 5 is an O-shaped member including each of the two end core portions and each of the two side core portions, and
the second core piece 6 is an I-shaped member including the middle core portion (col. 2, lines 34-38). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the OI core pieces as taught by Saitoh to the reactor of Kusawake in view of Yoshikawa and Teranishi to adjust the variation of the inductance of the reactor (col. 1, lines 35-38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights