DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group I, Species II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
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, 6-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. [CN 87100199] in view of Tanabe [JP S5776813] (for clearer illustration).
Regarding Claim 1, Vanschaick et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 2-3C with teachings from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use, see English translation, motor), the inductor (Figs. 2-3C) comprising:
a magnetically conductive core (20, see English translation);
a bobbin (40) encircling a section of the core (see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1);
an electrically conductive winding (27) encircling the bobbin (40, see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1, see English translation), the winding and the bobbin defining a channel (64) therebetween (see Fig. 3A, left portion of element 27 and element 40 defining element 64 therebetween); and
an inlet port configured to direct fluid through the channel to cool the inductor (an inlet port would be required in order to configure to direct fluid through element 64 to cool the device).
For clearer illustration, Tanabe shows a device (Fig. 2 with teaching from Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting an inlet port (4) configured to direct fluid through the channel to cool the inductor (see Fig. 2, Paragraph [0002]).
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 inlet port configured to direct fluid through the channel to cool the inductor as taught by Tanabe for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. to facilitate cooling by improving the reliability against water leakage (Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 6, Vanschaick et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 2-3C with teachings from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use, see English translation, motor), the inductor (Figs. 2-3C) comprising:
a magnetically conductive core (20, see English translation) having first (right section of Fig. 1) and second (middle section of Fig. 1) straight sections (see Figs. 1-3C);
first (right assembly of Fig. 1) and second (middle assembly of Fig. 1) winding assemblies encircling the first and second straight sections respectively (see Figs. 1-3C), each winding assembly (the teaching shown in Figs. 2-3C is applied to right assembly and middle assembly of Fig. 1) including
a bobbin (40); and
an electrically conductive winding (27) wrapped around the bobbin (40, see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1, see English translation) defining a channel (64) therebetween (see Fig. 3A, left portion of element 27 and element 40 defining element 64 therebetween).
Vanschaick et al. does not explicitly show an electrical link between the winding of the first winding assembly and the winding of the second winding assembly.
Tanabe shows a device (Fig. 2 with teaching from Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting an electrical link (left end portion) between the winding of the first winding assembly (top element 2) and the winding of the second winding assembly (bottom element 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an electrical link between the winding of the first winding assembly and the winding of the second winding assembly as taught by Tanabe for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. to facilitate cooling by improving the reliability against water leakage (Paragraph [0002]) and small pressure loss of the cooling water (Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. shows a plastic filler (36) between each bobbin (40) and the core (20).
Regarding Claim 11, Tanabe shows each winding assembly includes an inlet port (element 4, 4’) and an outlet port (right end portion of top element 2 and bottom element 2) fluidly connected to the channel (see Fig. 2, see English translation).
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe [JP S5776813] in view of Vanschaick et al. [CN 87100199].
Regarding Claim 1, Tanabe shows an inductor (Fig. 2 with teaching from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use), the inductor (Fig. 2) comprising:
a magnetically conductive core (1, Paragraph [0002]);
an electrically conductive winding (2) encircling the core (see Fig. 2); and
an inlet port (4) configured to direct fluid through the channel to cool the inductor (see Fig. 2, Paragraph [0002]).
Tanabe does not explicitly show a bobbin encircling a section of the core, an electrically conductive winding encircling the bobbin, and the winding and the bobbin defining a channel therebetween.
Vanschaick et al. shows a device (Figs. 2-3C with teachings from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use, see English translation, motor) teaching and suggesting a bobbin (40) encircling a section of the core (20, see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1); an electrically conductive winding (27) encircling the bobbin (40, see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1, see English translation), the winding and the bobbin defining a channel (64) therebetween (see Fig. 3A, left portion of element 27 and element 40 defining element 64 therebetween); an inlet port configured to direct fluid through the channel to cool the inductor (an inlet port would be required in order to configure to direct fluid through element 64 to cool the device).
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 bobbin encircling a section of the core, an electrically conductive winding encircling the bobbin, and the winding and the bobbin defining a channel therebetween as taught by Vanschaick et al. for the device as disclosed by Tanabe to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability as a support for the coil to prevent displacement while enhancing cooling (see English translation).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanabe shows an inductor (Fig. 2 with teaching from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use), the inductor (Fig. 2) comprising:
a magnetically conductive core (1, Paragraph [0002]) having first (top section) and second (bottom section) straight sections (see Fig. 2);
first (top assembly) and second (bottom assembly) winding assemblies encircling the first and second straight sections respectively (see Fig. 2), each winding assembly including
an electrically conductive winding (top element 2 and bottom element 2); and
an electrical link (left end portion) between the winding of the first winding assembly (top element 2) and the winding of the second winding assembly (bottom element 2).
Tanabe does not explicitly show each winding assembly including a bobbin; and an electrically conductive winding wrapped around the bobbin defining a channel therebetween.
Vanschaick et al. shows a device (Figs. 2-3C with teachings from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use, see English translation, motor) teaching and suggesting a magnetically conductive core (20, see English translation) having first (right section of Fig. 1) and second (middle section of Fig. 1) straight sections (see Figs. 1-3C); first (right assembly of Fig. 1) and second (middle assembly of Fig. 1) winding assemblies encircling the first and second straight sections respectively (see Figs. 1-3C), each winding assembly (the teaching shown in Figs. 2-3C is applied to right assembly and middle assembly of Fig. 1) including a bobbin (40); and an electrically conductive winding (27) wrapped around the bobbin (40, see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1, see English translation) defining a channel (64) therebetween (see Fig. 3A, left portion of element 27 and element 40 defining element 64 therebetween).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each winding assembly including a bobbin; and an electrically conductive winding wrapped around the bobbin defining a channel therebetween as taught by Vanschaick et al. for the device as disclosed by Tanabe to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability as a support for the coil to prevent displacement while enhancing cooling (see English translation).
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. shows a plastic filler (36) between each bobbin (40) and the core (20).
Regarding Claim 11, Tanabe shows each winding assembly includes an inlet port (element 4, 4’) and an outlet port (right end portion of top element 2 and bottom element 2) fluidly connected to the channel (see Fig. 2, see English translation).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of Sakai et al. [U.S. Patent No. 4,988,055].
Regarding Claim 5, Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbin includes spiral locating features.
Sakai et al. shows a coil assembly (Figs. 10-12) teaching and suggesting the bobbin (41) includes spiral locating features (41h, 41i, 41e, 41g).
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 bobbin includes spiral locating features as taught by Sakai et al. for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to facilitate stability and reliability capable of performing very stable multi-layer wire winding and realizing high-density coil winding in an orderly fashion (Col. 1, Lines 47-51).
Regarding Claim 10, Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbins include spiral locating features.
Sakai et al. shows a coil assembly (Figs. 10-12) teaching and suggesting the bobbin (41) includes spiral locating features (41h, 41i, 41e, 41g).
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 bobbin includes spiral locating features as taught by Sakai et al. for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to facilitate stability and reliability capable of performing very stable multi-layer wire winding and realizing high-density coil winding in an orderly fashion (Col. 1, Lines 47-51).
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 bobbins includes spiral locating features, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to facilitate stability and reliability capable of performing very stable multi-layer wire winding and realizing high-density coil winding in an orderly fashion. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of Miyazaki [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0286573].
Regarding Claim 5, Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbin includes spiral locating features.
Miyazaki shows a device (Figs. 4-8) teaching and suggesting the bobbin (20) includes spiral locating features (21, 22).
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 bobbin includes spiral locating features as taught by Miyazaki for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to facilitate stability and reliability of the winding portion (Paragraph [0058]) which can suppress proximity effect and reduce stray capacitance while reducing insertion loss (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding Claim 10, Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbins include spiral locating features.
Miyazaki shows a device (Figs. 4-8) teaching and suggesting the bobbins (20) include spiral locating features (21, 22).
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 bobbins include spiral locating features as taught by Miyazaki for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to facilitate stability and reliability of the winding portion (Paragraph [0058]) which can suppress proximity effect and reduce stray capacitance while reducing insertion loss (Paragraph [0017]).
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 bobbins includes spiral locating features, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to facilitate stability and reliability capable of performing very stable multi-layer wire winding and realizing high-density coil winding in an orderly fashion. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of LaFleur et al. [U.S. Patent No. 6,600,402].
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, LaFleur et al. shows a plastic filler (49, Col. 4, Lines 12-35) between each bobbin (48) and the core (51, see Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a plastic filler between each bobbin and the core as taught by LaFleur et al. for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to facilitate stability and reliability by bonding (Col. 4, Lines 12-35).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Misaki et al. [DE 102020114182].
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Misaki et al. shows a plastic filler (6, see English translation) between each bobbin (8) and the core (31, see Figs. 1-2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a plastic filler between each bobbin and the core as taught by Misaki et al. for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to facilitate higher quality of heat dissipation (see English translation).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Suzuki [U.S. Patent No. 6,894,596].
Regarding Claim 10, Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbins include spiral locating features.
Suzuki shows a device (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting the bobbins (26a, 26b) include spiral locating features (56a, 56b).
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 bobbins include spiral locating features as taught by Suzuki for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Tanabe OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to securing creepage distance adequate to prevent creeping discharge (Col. 7, Lines 7-21).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. [CN 87100199] in view of Schwartz [U.S. Patent No. 4,488,135].
Regarding Claim 6, Vanschaick et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 2-3C with teachings from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use, see English translation, motor), the inductor (Figs. 2-3C) comprising:
a magnetically conductive core (20, see English translation) having first (right section of Fig. 1) and second (middle section of Fig. 1) straight sections (see Figs. 1-3C);
first (right assembly of Fig. 1) and second (middle assembly of Fig. 1) winding assemblies encircling the first and second straight sections respectively (see Figs. 1-3C), each winding assembly (the teaching shown in Figs. 2-3C is applied to right assembly and middle assembly of Fig. 1) including
a bobbin (40); and
an electrically conductive winding (27) wrapped around the bobbin (40, see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1, see English translation) defining a channel (64) therebetween (see Fig. 3A, left portion of element 27 and element 40 defining element 64 therebetween).
Vanschaick et al. does not explicitly show an electrical link between the winding of the first winding assembly and the winding of the second winding assembly.
Schwartz shows a device (Fig. 5 with teaching from Figs. 1-3) teaching and suggesting an electrical link (27) between the winding of the first winding assembly (16) and the winding of the second winding assembly (18, see Fig. 5).
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 electrical link between the winding of the first winding assembly and the winding of the second winding assembly as taught by Schwartz for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. to achieve a secure connection for adjacent windings to obtain desirable operating characteristics and cooling (Col. 5, Lines 44-54).
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. shows a plastic filler (36) between each bobbin (40) and the core (20).
Regarding Claim 11, Schwartz shows each winding assembly includes an inlet port (element 25 of element 16, element 26 of element 18) and an outlet port (element 26 of element 16, element 25 at element 28 of element 18) fluidly connected to the channel (see Fig. 5 and see Figs. 1-3).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe [JP S5776813] in view of Vanschaick et al. [CN 87100199] and Schwartz [U.S. Patent No. 4,488,135].
Regarding Claim 6, Tanabe shows an inductor (Fig. 2 with teaching from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use), the inductor (Fig. 2) comprising:
a magnetically conductive core (1, Paragraph [0002]) having first (top section) and second (bottom section) straight sections (see Fig. 2);
first (top assembly) and second (bottom assembly) winding assemblies encircling the first and second straight sections respectively (see Fig. 2), each winding assembly including
an electrically conductive winding (top element 2 and bottom element 2); and
an electrical link (left end portion) between the winding of the first winding assembly (top element 2) and the winding of the second winding assembly (bottom element 2).
Tanabe does not explicitly show each winding assembly including a bobbin; and an electrically conductive winding wrapped around the bobbin defining a channel therebetween.
Vanschaick et al. shows a device (Figs. 2-3C with teachings from Fig. 1) for an electric drive system (this is intended use, see English translation, motor) teaching and suggesting a magnetically conductive core (20, see English translation) having first (right section of Fig. 1) and second (middle section of Fig. 1) straight sections (see Figs. 1-3C); first (right assembly of Fig. 1) and second (middle assembly of Fig. 1) winding assemblies encircling the first and second straight sections respectively (see Figs. 1-3C), each winding assembly (the teaching shown in Figs. 2-3C is applied to right assembly and middle assembly of Fig. 1) including a bobbin (40); and an electrically conductive winding (27) wrapped around the bobbin (40, see Figs. 2-3C and Fig. 1, see English translation) defining a channel (64) therebetween (see Fig. 3A, left portion of element 27 and element 40 defining element 64 therebetween).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each winding assembly including a bobbin; and an electrically conductive winding wrapped around the bobbin defining a channel therebetween as taught by Vanschaick et al. for the device as disclosed by Tanabe to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability as a support for the coil to prevent displacement while enhancing cooling (see English translation).
In addition, Schwartz shows a device (Fig. 5 with teaching from Figs. 1-3) teaching and suggesting an electrical link (27) between the winding of the first winding assembly (16) and the winding of the second winding assembly (18, see Fig. 5).
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 electrical link between the winding of the first winding assembly and the winding of the second winding assembly as taught by Schwartz for the device as disclosed by Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. to achieve a secure connection for adjacent windings to obtain desirable operating characteristics and cooling (Col. 5, Lines 44-54).
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. shows a plastic filler (36) between each bobbin (40) and the core (20).
Regarding Claim 11, Schwartz shows each winding assembly includes an inlet port (element 25 of element 16, element 26 of element 18) and an outlet port (element 26 of element 16, element 25 at element 28 of element 18) fluidly connected to the channel (see Fig. 5 and see Figs. 1-3).
Tanabe shows each winding assembly includes an inlet port (element 4, 4’) and an outlet port (right end portion of top element 2 and bottom element 2) fluidly connected to the channel (see Fig. 2, see English translation).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of LaFleur et al. [U.S. Patent No. 6,600,402].
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, LaFleur et al. shows a plastic filler (49, Col. 4, Lines 12-35) between each bobbin (48) and the core (51, see Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a plastic filler between each bobbin and the core as taught by LaFleur et al. for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz to facilitate stability and reliability by bonding (Col. 4, Lines 12-35).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Misaki et al. [DE 102020114182].
Regarding Claim 7, Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Misaki et al. shows a plastic filler (6, see English translation) between each bobbin (8) and the core (31, see Figs. 1-2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a plastic filler between each bobbin and the core as taught by Misaki et al. for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz to facilitate higher quality of heat dissipation (see English translation).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Sakai et al. [U.S. Patent No. 4,988,055].
Regarding Claim 10, Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbins include spiral locating features.
Sakai et al. shows a coil assembly (Figs. 10-12) teaching and suggesting the bobbin (41) includes spiral locating features (41h, 41i, 41e, 41g).
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 bobbin includes spiral locating features as taught by Sakai et al. for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz to facilitate stability and reliability capable of performing very stable multi-layer wire winding and realizing high-density coil winding in an orderly fashion (Col. 1, Lines 47-51).
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 bobbins includes spiral locating features, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to facilitate stability and reliability capable of performing very stable multi-layer wire winding and realizing high-density coil winding in an orderly fashion. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Miyazaki [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0286573].
Regarding Claim 10, Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbins include spiral locating features.
Miyazaki shows a device (Figs. 4-8) teaching and suggesting the bobbins (20) include spiral locating features (21, 22).
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 bobbins include spiral locating features as taught by Miyazaki for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz to facilitate stability and reliability of the winding portion (Paragraph [0058]) which can suppress proximity effect and reduce stray capacitance while reducing insertion loss (Paragraph [0017]).
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 bobbins includes spiral locating features, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to facilitate stability and reliability capable of performing very stable multi-layer wire winding and realizing high-density coil winding in an orderly fashion. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Suzuki [U.S. Patent No. 6,894,596].
Regarding Claim 10, Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the bobbins include spiral locating features.
Suzuki shows a device (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting the bobbins (26a, 26b) include spiral locating features (56a, 56b).
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 bobbins include spiral locating features as taught by Suzuki for the device as disclosed by Vanschaick et al. in view of Schwartz OR Tanabe in view of Vanschaick et al. and Schwartz to securing creepage distance adequate to prevent creeping discharge (Col. 7, Lines 7-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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