DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2, Figure 6 in the reply filed on 4/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that additional coated layer and bobbin structure and the condition under multiple PCB-based inductors are obvious variants to each other. This is not found persuasive because the bobbin structure and the conduction under multiple PCB-based inductors require search and/or consideration in other areas, class/subclass. Claims 1-10 and 13-19 will be examined herewith with none of the claim is generic.
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 1-10 and 13-19 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.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the first and/or second terminals relative to the conductive layers [outermost or centermost layer(s)]. Applicant should also clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the conductive layers intended by “arranged in a staggered pattern”. Claims 2-10 and 14-16 and 18-19 inherit the defect of the parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13-19, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagi [JP S58-124916 U].
Regarding claim 1, Akagi discloses a PCB-based inductor [figures 1-4], comprising:
- an insulating planar board having a central through hole; a plurality of conductive layers embedded in the insulating planar board and stacked on top of each other, the conductive layers being electrically connected with each other through one or more buried vias, each of the conductive layers being patterned to have a spiral shape around the central through hole and arranged in an annulus region having an annular radius; a first terminal electrically coupled to outermost ones of the conductive layers; and a second terminal electrically coupled to a centermost one of the conductive layers; wherein the conductive layers are arranged in a staggered pattern.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13-19, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang [CN 206287941] in view of Akagi [JP S58-124916 U].
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, Yang discloses a PCB-based inductor [figures 1-3], comprising:
- an insulating planar board having a central through hole [figures 1-3];
- a plurality of conductive layers [13, 23, 33] embedded in the insulating planar board and stacked on top of each other, the conductive layers being electrically connected with each other through one or more buried vias, each of the conductive layers being patterned to have a spiral shape around the central through hole, the conductive layers increases from the centermost one of the conductive layers to the outermost ones of the conductive layers [figure 3];
- terminals for internal/external connections, wherein the conductive layers are arranged in a staggered pattern and the conductive layers are spatially separated in a vertical direction [figure 3].
Yang discloses the instant claimed invention except for the specific of the conductive layers and terminals.
Akagi discloses a PCB-based inductor [figures 1-5] comprising:
- a PCB-based coil structure [figures 1-2 and 4] including a plurality of conductive layers arranged in staggered [or offset] arrangement [figures 3 and 5]; and
- terminals [2a/6a, 10/4a, 5a/9b, 12a/16a, 28/14a, 23a/14a, figures 1-2 and 4-5], wherein the one of the terminals connected to “outermost layer” and other terminal connected to “center layer” [figures 2 and 5].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the terminal connections and/or arrangement of Akagi in Yang for the purpose of improving internal/external connections and tapping.
The specific anulus pattern/shape of the spiral conductive layers would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intended application and/or environment uses.
Regarding claims 2-3, 6, 16 and 18-19, Yang discloses the staggered pattern is in different shapes staggered pattern [figures 2-3]. The specific concave stagger pattern would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intend inductance and/or magnetic flux/field desired.
Regarding claims 4-5, 14-15 and 17, Akagi discloses a winding extension protruding from an edge of the conductive layers [figures 1-2 and 4-5], wherein the second terminal is electrically coupled to the centermost one of the conductive layers through the winding extension [figures 1-2 and 4-5].
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses comprising a magnetic core [11/12, 21/22, 31/32] magnetically coupled to the conductive layers.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Akagi as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Sun et al. [CN 210516439 U]
Regarding claims 9-10, Yang in view of Akagi disclose the instant claimed invention except for the magnetic core is electrical connected to the first terminal.
Sun et al discloses a magnetic device [figure 1, abstract] comprising:
- a core structure [3] coated with a conductive layer [6];
- a coil [4] having ends wound about the magnetic core; and
- grounding terminal [5, 51] electrically connected to the core structure at the conductive layer.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the terminal to the magnetic core of Yang in view of Akagi, as suggested by Sun et al. for the purpose of improving grounding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1996. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights