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
Claims 5, 13, and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, Species I-II and IV-VII and Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species III in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that rejoinder of the withdrawn claims is respectfully requested at such time as allowable subject matter is identified. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search and the species of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (for example, searching different classifications, classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). The examiner will consider rejoinder of the withdrawn claims when as allowable subject matter is identified.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 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.
The term “low permeability characteristics” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low permeability characteristics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high permeability magnetic material” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low permeability characteristics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “low permeability characteristics” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low permeability characteristics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12, line 5, recites “the coil member” is indefinite and unclear since claim 11 recites “one or more coil members”. As best understood, “the coil member” should be “the one or more coil members”.
The term “high permeability magnetic material” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low permeability characteristics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-2, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima [JP 2015-008236] in view of Min et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0030529].
Regarding Claim 1, Kijima shows a device (Fig. 4 with teaching from Fig. 3) comprising:
a core structure (2) having low permeability characteristics (element 5 can have low permeability characteristics or element 2 made of silicon steel can be considered having low permeability characteristics since the term “low” is a relative term),
wherein the core structure (2) defines a first cross-sectional area (Sc); and
one (3) or more coil members comprising:
one or more sets of loops (see Fig. 4, Paragraph [0018]),
wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the core structure (see Figs. 3-4) and defines a second cross-sectional area (Sr);
wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (for example, Sr/Sc can be 1.3 or 1.5, Paragraph [0027]).
In addition, Min et al. shows an inductive device (Figs. 1-6B) clearly discloses a core (3, 22, 50) structure having low permeability characteristics (air gap have low permeability characteristics, Paragraph [0059]).
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 core structure having low permeability characteristics as taught by Min et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima to reduce fringe effects (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kijima shows a portion of the core structure (2) defines the first cross-sectional area (Sc, see Fig. 3); and
wherein the one or more coil members wind around the portion of the core structure (2) and defines the second cross-sectional area (Sr, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Kijima shows the core structure comprises a UU core structure (see Fig. 3, Paragraph [0017]) comprising:
a first leg (left leg), and
a second leg (right leg); and
wherein the one (3) or more coil members wind around the first leg (left leg, see Fig. 3), the second leg, or both.
Regarding Claim 7, Kijima shows the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current (as of limitation "the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current", it is seen that the Kijima reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current).
Regarding Claim 9, Kijima shows the core structure (2) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (silicon steel can be considered high permeability magnetic material without any value present, Paragraph [0026]).
Min et al. shows the core structure (3, 22, 50) further comprises an air gap (air gap have low permeability characteristics, Paragraph [0059]) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Inaba in view of Kijima and Min et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onishi et al. [JP H06-84668].
Regarding Claim 3, Kijima in view of Min et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show one or more frame members, wherein the one or more frame members are located around the core structure; and wherein the one or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members to define the second cross-sectional area.
Onishi et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting one or more frame members (1), wherein the one or more frame members (1) are located around the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and wherein the one (4) or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members (1) to define the second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define the second cross-sectional area).
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 one or more frame members, wherein the one or more frame members are located around the core structure; and wherein the one or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members to define the second cross-sectional area as taught by Onishi et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. to reduce distribution capacitance and realizing high-quality (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 4, Onishi et al. shows the one or more frame members (1) are located around a portion of the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ooi et al. [U.S. Patent No. 5,977,853].
Regarding Claim 8, Kijima in view of Min et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Ooi et al. shows the core structure (6) is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Col. 3, Lines 24-33).
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 core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Ooi et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0323702].
Regarding Claim 8, Kijima in view of Min et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Zhou et al. shows the core structure (see Fig. 5a, Paragraph [0059]) is composed of a low (the term “low” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Paragraph [0059]).
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 core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Zhou et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0028431].
Regarding Claim 9, Kijima in view of Min et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above such that Min et al. shows the core structure (3, 22, 50) further comprises an air gap (air gap have low permeability characteristics, Paragraph [0059]) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Inaba in view of Kijima and Min et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
In addition, Lee et al. discloses the core structure (10, 20, 30, 40) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (silicon steel can be considered high permeability magnetic material without any value present, Paragraph [0005]).
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 core structure is composed of a high permeability magnetic material as taught by Lee et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. to high saturation induction, low core loss, minimize size, and low saturation coercivity (Paragraph [0005]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buono [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0388427].
Regarding Claim 10, Kijima in view of Min et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire, a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire.
Buono shows an inductor (Fig. 13) teaching and suggesting the one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire (see Fig. 13, Paragraph [0172]), a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire (see Fig. 13, Paragraph [0172]).
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 one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire, a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire as taught by Buono for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and short-circuiting.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. [JP H06-84668] in view of Chen et al. [CN 101197205].
Regarding Claim 1, Onishi et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2 with teaching from Fig. 9 and Fig. 15) comprising:
a core structure (2) having low permeability characteristics (element 2 made of ferrite can have low or high permeability characteristics depending how the term “low” is defined),
wherein the core structure (2) defines a first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], the diameter of element 2 is 1 to 20 mm, for example, if diameter is 20 mm then a first cross-sectional area is π(20/2)2 is 100π mm2); and
one (4) or more coil members comprising:
one or more sets of loops (see Figs. 1-2, Paragraph [0020]),
wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the core structure (see Figs. 1-2) and defines a second cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], lo, the distance between the element 4 and element is 2 to 3.5 mm, for example, if 3.5 mm, then a second cross-sectional area is π(3.5+10)2 is 182.25π mm2);
wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (for example, 182.25π/100π is be 1.82, Paragraph [0021]).
In addition, Chen et al. shows a filter (Fig. 8) clearly discloses a core (180, 181) structure having low permeability characteristics (air gap G1 or G2 have low permeability characteristics, 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 core structure having low permeability characteristics as taught by Chen et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. to prevent current from saturating at full load (see English translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Onishi et al. shows a portion of the core structure (2) defines the first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], see Figs. 1-2, and claim 1 rejection above); and
wherein the one or more coil members wind around the portion of the core structure (2) and defines the second cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], see Figs. 1-2, and claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 3, Onishi et al. shows one or more frame members (1),
wherein the one or more frame members (1) are located around the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the one (4) or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members (1) to define the second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define the second cross-sectional area).
Regarding Claim 4, Onishi et al. shows the one or more frame members (1) are located around a portion of the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Onishi et al. shows the core structure comprises a UU core structure (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0017]) comprising:
a first leg (left leg), and
a second leg (right leg); and
wherein the one (4) or more coil members wind around the first leg (left leg, see Fig. 1), the second leg (right leg, see Fig. 1), or both.
Regarding Claim 7, Onishi et al. shows the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current (as of limitation "the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current", it is seen that the Onishi et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current).
Regarding Claim 9, Onishi et al. shows the core structure (2) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, Paragraph [0013]).
Chen et al. shows the core structure (162) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, see English translation) and the core structure further comprises an air gap (air gap G1 or G2) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
Regarding Claim 10, Onishi et al. shows the one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire (see Figs. 9 and 15, Paragraph [0004]), a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire.
Regarding Claim 11, Onishi et al. shows an inductive device (Figs. 1-2 with teaching from Fig. 9 and Fig. 15) comprising:
a core structure (2) having low permeability characteristics (element 2 made of ferrite can have low or high permeability characteristics depending how the term “low” is defined),
wherein the core structure (2) defines a first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], the diameter of element 2 is 1 to 20 mm, for example, if diameter is 20 mm then a first cross-sectional area is π(20/2)2 is 100π mm2);
one or more frame (1) members,
wherein the one or more frame members (1) is located around the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and
one (4) or more coil members comprising:
one or more sets of loops (see Figs. 1-2, Paragraph [0020]),
wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the one or more frame members (1) and defines a second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define a second cross-sectional area, Paragraph [0021], lo, the distance between the element 4 and element is 2 to 3.5 mm, for example, if 3.5 mm, then a second cross-sectional area is π(3.5+10)2 is 182.25π mm2);
wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (for example, 182.25π/100π is be 1.82, Paragraph [0021]).
In addition, Chen et al. shows a filter (Fig. 8) clearly discloses a core (180, 181) structure having low permeability characteristics (air gap G1 or G2 have low permeability characteristics, 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 core structure having low permeability characteristics as taught by Chen et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. to prevent current from saturating at full load (see English translation).
Regarding Claim 12, Onishi et al. shows a portion of the core structure (2) defines the first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], see Figs. 1-2, and claim 1 rejection above);
wherein the one or more frame members (1) is located around the portion of the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the coil member (4) winds around the one or more frame members (1) and defines the second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define the second cross-sectional area, see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 14, Onishi et al. shows the core structure comprises a UU core structure (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0017]) comprising:
a first leg (left leg), and
a second leg (right leg); and
wherein the one or more frame members (1) and a respective one (4) or more coil members winds around the first leg (left leg, see Fig. 1), the second leg (right leg, see Fig. 1), or both.
Regarding Claim 15, Onishi et al. shows the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current (as of limitation "the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current", it is seen that the Onishi et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current).
Regarding Claim 16, Onishi et al. shows the core structure (2) is comprises:
a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr; or
a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, Paragraph [0013]).
Chen et al. shows the core structure (162) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, see English translation) and the core structure further comprises an air gap (air gap G1 or G2) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ooi et al. [U.S. Patent No. 5,977,853].
Regarding Claim 8, Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Ooi et al. shows the core structure (6) is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Col. 3, Lines 24-33).
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 core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Ooi et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Ooi et al. shows the core structure (6) is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Col. 3, Lines 24-33).
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 core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Ooi et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0323702].
Regarding Claim 8, Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Zhou et al. shows the core structure (see Fig. 5a, Paragraph [0059]) is composed of a low (the term “low” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Paragraph [0059]).
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 core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Zhou et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is composed of a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Zhou et al. shows the core structure (see Fig. 5a, Paragraph [0059]) is comprises a low (the term “low” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Paragraph [0059]).
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 core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Zhou et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. [CN 1134028].
Regarding Claim 9, Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above such that Chen et al. shows the core structure further comprises an air gap (air gap G1 or G2) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics)..
In addition, Yamaguchi et al. shows the core structure (6, 7) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, 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 core structure is composed of a high permeability magnetic material as taught by Yamaguchi et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. to enhance magnetic coupling with higher efficiency, reduced core losses, an increased inductance.
Regarding Claim 16, Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above such that Chen et al. shows the core structure further comprises an air gap (air gap G1 or G2) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics)..
In addition, Yamaguchi et al. shows the core structure (6, 7) is comprises a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, 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 core structure is comprises a high permeability magnetic material as taught by Yamaguchi et al. for the device as disclosed by Onishi et al. in view of Chen et al. to enhance magnetic coupling with higher efficiency, reduced core losses, an increased inductance.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0174998] in view of Kijima [JP 2015-008236].
Regarding Claim 1, Inaba shows a device (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a core structure (31, 32) having low permeability characteristics (Paragraph [0091]),
wherein the core structure (31, 32) defines a first cross-sectional area (S31); and
one (2a) or more coil members comprising:
one or more sets of loops (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0058]),
wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the core structure (see Figs. 1-4) and defines a second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-4).
Inaba does not explicitly show the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area.
Kijima shows a device (Fig. 4 with teaching from Fig. 3) comprising: a core structure (2) having low permeability characteristics (element 5 can have low permeability characteristics or element 2 made of silicon steel can be considered having low permeability characteristics since the term “low” is a relative term), wherein the core structure (2) defines a first cross-sectional area (Sc); and one (3) or more coil members comprising: one or more sets of loops (see Fig. 4, Paragraph [0018]), wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the core structure (see Figs. 3-4) and defines a second cross-sectional area (Sr); wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (for example, Sr/Sc can be 1.3 or 1.5, Paragraph [0027]).
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 second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area as taught by Kijima for the device as disclosed by Inaba to suppress magnetic saturation, improving inductance and reducing loss (Abstract, Problem to be Solved).
Regarding Claim 2, Kijima shows a portion of the core structure (2) defines the first cross-sectional area (Sc, see Fig. 3); and
wherein the one or more coil members wind around the portion of the core structure (2) and defines the second cross-sectional area (Sr, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Kijima shows the core structure comprises a UU core structure (see Fig. 3, Paragraph [0017]) comprising:
a first leg (left leg), and
a second leg (right leg); and
wherein the one (3) or more coil members wind around the first leg (left leg, see Fig. 3), the second leg, or both.
Regarding Claim 7, Inaba in view of Kijima shows the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current (as of limitation "the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current", it is seen that the Inaba in view of Kijima reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current).
Regarding Claim 8, Inaba shows the core structure (31, 32) is composed of a low permeability magnetic material (31) having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Paragraph [0091]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba in view of Kijima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onishi et al. [JP H06-84668].
Regarding Claim 3, Inaba in view of Kijima shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show one or more frame members, wherein the one or more frame members are located around the core structure; and wherein the one or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members to define the second cross-sectional area.
Onishi et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting one or more frame members (1), wherein the one or more frame members (1) are located around the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and wherein the one (4) or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members (1) to define the second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define the second cross-sectional area).
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 one or more frame members, wherein the one or more frame members are located around the core structure; and wherein the one or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members to define the second cross-sectional area as taught by Onishi et al. for the device as disclosed by Inaba in view of Kijima to reduce distribution capacitance and realizing high-quality (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 4, Onishi et al. shows the one or more frame members (1) are located around a portion of the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba in view of Kijima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Min et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0030529].
Regarding Claim 9, Inaba shows the core structure (32) is composed of a high permeability magnetic material (Paragraph [0092]).
Kijima shows the core structure (2) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (silicon steel can be considered high permeability magnetic material without any value present, Paragraph [0026]).
Inaba in view of Kijima does not explicitly show the core structure further comprises an air gap structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics.
Min et al. shows the core structure (3, 22, 50) further comprises an air gap (air gap have low permeability characteristics, Paragraph [0059]) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Inaba in view of Kijima and Min et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
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 an air gap structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics as taught by Min et al. for the device as disclosed by Inaba in view of Kijima to reduce fringe effects (Paragraph [0016]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba in view of Kijima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buono [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0388427].
Regarding Claim 10, Inaba in view of Kijima shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire, a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire.
Buono shows an inductor (Fig. 13) teaching and suggesting the one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire (see Fig. 13, Paragraph [0172]), a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire (see Fig. 13, Paragraph [0172]).
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 one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire, a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire as taught by Buono for the device as disclosed by Inaba in view of Kijima to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and short-circuiting.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0174998] in view of Onishi et al. [JP H06-84668].
Regarding Claim 1, Inaba shows a device (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a core structure (31, 32) having low permeability characteristics (Paragraph [0091]),
wherein the core structure (31, 32) defines a first cross-sectional area (S31); and
one (2a) or more coil members comprising:
one or more sets of loops (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0058]),
wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the core structure (see Figs. 1-4) and defines a second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-4).
Inaba does not explicitly show the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area.
Onishi et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2 with teaching from Fig. 9 and Fig. 15) comprising: a core structure (2) having low permeability characteristics (element 2 made of ferrite can have low or high permeability characteristics depending how the term “low” is defined), wherein the core structure (2) defines a first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], the diameter of element 2 is 1 to 20 mm, for example, if diameter is 20 mm then a first cross-sectional area is π(20/2)2 is 100π mm2); and one (4) or more coil members comprising: one or more sets of loops (see Figs. 1-2, Paragraph [0020]), wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the core structure (see Figs. 1-2) and defines a second cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], lo, the distance between the element 4 and element is 2 to 3.5 mm, for example, if 3.5 mm, then a second cross-sectional area is π(3.5+10)2 is 182.25π mm2); wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (for example, 182.25π/100π is be 1.82, Paragraph [0021]).
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 second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area as taught by Onishi et al. for the device as disclosed by Inaba to reduce the distribution capacitance generated between the core and the coil portion (Paragraphs [0021]-[0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, Onishi et al. shows a portion of the core structure (2) defines the first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], see Figs. 1-2, and claim 1 rejection above); and
wherein the one or more coil members wind around the portion of the core structure (2) and defines the second cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], see Figs. 1-2, and claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 3, Onishi et al. shows one or more frame members (1),
wherein the one or more frame members (1) are located around the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the one (4) or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members (1) to define the second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define the second cross-sectional area).
Regarding Claim 4, Onishi et al. shows the one or more frame members (1) are located around a portion of the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Onishi et al. shows the core structure comprises a UU core structure (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0017]) comprising:
a first leg (left leg), and
a second leg (right leg); and
wherein the one (4) or more coil members wind around the first leg (left leg, see Fig. 1), the second leg (right leg, see Fig. 1), or both.
Regarding Claim 7, Inaba in view of Onishi et al. shows the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current (as of limitation "the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current", it is seen that the Inaba in view of Onishi et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current).
Regarding Claim 8, Inaba shows the core structure (31, 32) is composed of a low permeability magnetic material (31) having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 10, Onishi et al. shows the one or more coil members comprises at least one of: a flat wire (see Figs. 9 and 15, Paragraph [0004]), a multistrand wire having individually insulated strands, and an insulated magnet wire.
Regarding Claim 11, Inaba shows an inductive device (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a core structure (31, 32) having low permeability characteristics (Paragraph [0091]),
wherein the core structure (31, 32) defines a first cross-sectional area (S31);
one or more frame members (5),
wherein the one or more frame members (5) is located around the core structure (see Figs. 1-3); and
one (2a) or more coil members comprising:
one or more sets of loops (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0058]),
wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the one or more frame members (see Figs. 1-4) and defines a second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-4).
Inaba does not explicitly show the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area.
Onishi et al. shows an inductive device (Figs. 1-2 with teaching from Fig. 9 and Fig. 15) comprising: a core structure (2) having low permeability characteristics (element 2 made of ferrite can have low or high permeability characteristics depending how the term “low” is defined), wherein the core structure (2) defines a first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], the diameter of element 2 is 1 to 20 mm, for example, if diameter is 20 mm then a first cross-sectional area is π(20/2)2 is 100π mm2); one or more frame (1) members, wherein the one or more frame members (1) is located around the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and one (4) or more coil members comprising: one or more sets of loops (see Figs. 1-2, Paragraph [0020]), wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the one or more frame members (1) and defines a second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define a second cross-sectional area, Paragraph [0021], lo, the distance between the element 4 and element is 2 to 3.5 mm, for example, if 3.5 mm, then a second cross-sectional area is π(3.5+10)2 is 182.25π mm2); wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (for example, 182.25π/100π is be 1.82, Paragraph [0021]).
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 second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area as taught by Onishi et al. for the device as disclosed by Inaba to reduce the distribution capacitance generated between the core and the coil portion (Paragraphs [0021]-[0023]).
Regarding Claim 12, Onishi et al. shows a portion of the core structure (2) defines the first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], see Figs. 1-2, and claim 1 rejection above);
wherein the one or more frame members (1) is located around the portion of the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the coil member (4) winds around the one or more frame members (1) and defines the second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define the second cross-sectional area, see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 14, Onishi et al. shows the core structure comprises a UU core structure (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0017]) comprising:
a first leg (left leg), and
a second leg (right leg); and
wherein the one or more frame members (1) and a respective one (4) or more coil members winds around the first leg (left leg, see Fig. 1), the second leg (right leg, see Fig. 1), or both.
Regarding Claim 15, Onishi et al. shows the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current (as of limitation "the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current", it is seen that the Onishi et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current).
Regarding Claim 16, Inaba shows the core structure (31, 32) comprises:
a low permeability magnetic material (31) having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Paragraph [0091]); or
a high permeability magnetic material and the core structure further comprises an air gap structure to enable the core structure to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba in view of Onishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. [CN 101197205].
Regarding Claim 9, Inaba shows the core structure (32) is composed of a high permeability magnetic material (Paragraph [0092]).
Onishi et al. shows the core structure (2) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, Paragraph [0013]).
Inaba in view of Onishi et al. does not explicitly show the core structure further comprises an air gap structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics.
Chen et al. shows the core structure (162) is composed of a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (ferrite can be considered high permeability magnetic material, see English translation) and the core structure further comprises an air gap (air gap G1 or G2) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Inaba in view of Onishi et al. and Chen et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
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 an air gap structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics as taught by Chen et al. for the device as disclosed by Inaba in view of Onishi et al. to prevent current from saturating at full load (see English translation).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima [JP 2015-008236] in view of Min et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0030529] and Onishi et al. [JP H06-84668].
Regarding Claim 11, Kijima shows an inductive device (Fig. 4 with teaching from Fig. 3) comprising:
a core structure (2) having low permeability characteristics (element 5 can have low permeability characteristics or element 2 made of silicon steel can be considered having low permeability characteristics since the term “low” is a relative term),
wherein the core structure (2) defines a first cross-sectional area (Sc); and
one (3) or more coil members comprising:
one or more sets of loops (see Fig. 4, Paragraph [0018]),
wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the core structure (see Figs. 3-4) and defines a second cross-sectional area (Sr);
wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (for example, Sr/Sc can be 1.3 or 1.5, Paragraph [0027]).
Kijima does not explicitly show one or more frame members; wherein the one or more frame members is located around the core structure; and wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the one or more frame members and defines a second cross-sectional area.
In addition, Min et al. shows an inductive device (Figs. 1-6B) clearly discloses a core (3, 22, 50) structure having low permeability characteristics (air gap have low permeability characteristics, Paragraph [0059]).
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 core structure having low permeability characteristics as taught by Min et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima to reduce fringe effects (Paragraph [0016]).
Kijima in view of Min et al. does not explicitly show one or more frame members; wherein the one or more frame members is located around the core structure; and wherein the one or more sets of loops winds around the one or more frame members and defines a second cross-sectional area.
Onishi et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting one or more frame members (1), wherein the one or more frame members (1) are located around the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and wherein the one (4) or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members (1) and defines a second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define a second cross-sectional area, Paragraph [0021], lo, the distance between the element 4 and element is 2 to 3.5 mm, for example, if 3.5 mm, then a second cross-sectional area is π(3.5+10)2 is 182.25π mm2); and wherein the second cross-sectional area is between 1.2 to 5 times larger than the first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], the diameter of element 2 is 1 to 20 mm, for example, if diameter is 20 mm then a first cross-sectional area is π(20/2)2 is 100π mm2, therefore, 182.25π/100π is be 1.82, Paragraph [0021]).
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 one or more frame members, wherein the one or more frame members are located around the core structure; and wherein the one or more coil members wind around the one or more frame members to define the second cross-sectional area as taught by Onishi et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. to reduce distribution capacitance and realizing high-quality (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 12, Onishi et al. shows a portion of the core structure (2) defines the first cross-sectional area (Paragraph [0021], see Figs. 1-2, and claim 1 rejection above);
wherein the one or more frame members (1) is located around the portion of the core structure (2, see Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the coil member (4) winds around the one or more frame members (1) and defines the second cross-sectional area (see Figs. 1-2, element 4 wind around element 1 to define the second cross-sectional area, see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 14, Onishi et al. shows the core structure comprises a UU core structure (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0017]) comprising:
a first leg (left leg), and
a second leg (right leg); and
wherein the one or more frame members (1) and a respective one (4) or more coil members winds around the first leg (left leg, see Fig. 1), the second leg (right leg, see Fig. 1), or both.
Regarding Claim 15, Onishi et al. shows the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current (as of limitation "the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current", it is seen that the Onishi et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more coil members is further configured to provide an increase in inductance due to increased leakage paths for magnetic flux in response to increasing electrical current).
Regarding Claim 16, Kijima shows the core structure (2) comprises:
a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr; or
a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (silicon steel can be considered high permeability magnetic material without any value present, Paragraph [0026]).
Min et al. shows the core structure (3, 22, 50) further comprises an air gap (air gap have low permeability characteristics, Paragraph [0059]) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Inaba in view of Kijima and Min et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ooi et al. [U.S. Patent No. 5,977,853].
Regarding Claim 8, Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Ooi et al. shows the core structure (6) is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Col. 3, Lines 24-33).
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 core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Ooi et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0323702].
Regarding Claim 16, Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr.
Zhou et al. shows the core structure (see Fig. 5a, Paragraph [0059]) is comprises a low (the term “low” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr (Paragraph [0059]).
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 core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr as taught by Zhou et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core structure is comprises a low permeability magnetic material having a relative permeability from 10 to 200 µr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to enhance magnetic properties with lower reluctance to improve efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0028431].
Regarding Claim 16, Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above such that Min et al. shows the core structure (3, 22, 50) further comprises an air gap (air gap have low permeability characteristics, Paragraph [0059]) structure to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics (as of limitation "to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics", it is seen that the Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as to enable the device to demonstrate the low permeability characteristics).
In addition, Lee et al. discloses the core structure (10, 20, 30, 40) is comprises a high (the term “high” is a relative term) permeability magnetic material (silicon steel can be considered high permeability magnetic material without any value present, Paragraph [0005]).
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 core structure is comprises a high permeability magnetic material as taught by Lee et al. for the device as disclosed by Kijima in view of Min et al. and Onishi et al. to high saturation induction, low core loss, minimize size, and low saturation coercivity (Paragraph [0005]).
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