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 .
This office action is a response to the election of species filed on 4/29/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, claims 1, 2, 5 and 6-20, in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no factual showing has been made that examination of the claims would require different fields of search, different classifications, or different bodies of prior art. This is not found persuasive because the species are distinct and have acquired a separate status in the art as shown by their different and diverse subject matter and require a different field of search. Also, These separate species would require a separate search each, and some of the disclosed limitations are incompatible with each other (for example the 3D printing or layered manufacturing, lamination process).
However, Since the claim 9 is allowable, claims 10-13, directed to electroplating process of a plurality of interior walls of the plurality of insulator passages, previously restricted from the election of species, are now subject to bring rejoined. Claims 9-13 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/29/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING AN INSULATOR FOR A TRANSFORMER OR AN INDUCTOR--.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 5-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 1: The phrase “(ii) configured for housing one or more windings” as recited in lines 5-6 appears to be --(iii) configured for housing one or more windings--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10-13 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.
Re. claim 9: The phrase “the one or more windings include hollow passages” as recited in line 1 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to of what the hollow passages are indicated.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US PAT 7,427,909) in view of Freakes (PGPub 2016/0035473 A1).
Ono et al. teach a process of making an insulator for a transformer or an inductor, comprising steps of: forming the insulator (60, Fig. 4, col. 3, lines 53-62 and col. 4, line 13-15) having a plurality of insulator passages within a structure of the insulator, the plurality of insulator passages being (i) fluidically coupled together; (ii) configured for housing one or more windings; and (iii) arranged such that they define one or more apertures within the insulator; forming the one or more windings (30, Fig. 3, col. 3, lines 53-62) within the plurality of insulator passages; and installing a magnetic core (80, Fig. 8, col. 5, lines 20-28) such that it extends through the one or more apertures.
However, Ono et al. silent an additive manufacturing technique to form the insulator. Freakes teaches a process of making an electrical component including a process of forming an insulator (40, 42, Fig. 3) by 3D printing (as per claim 2, paragraph [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating an insulator for a transformer or an inductor of Ono et al. by an additive manufacturing technique as taught by Freakes in order to provide solid three dimensional insulator.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 5: Ono et al. also teach that a set of the plurality of insulator passages are connected to one another as shown in Fig. 3.
Re. claim 6: Freakes also teaches that the one or more windings are formed by filling the plurality of insulator passages with a molten conductor (paragraph [0066]).
Re. claims 7 and 8: Freakes also teaches that the molten conductor is copper material (paragraph [0074]).
Re. claims 17 and 18: Ono et al. also teach that the magnetic core includes a first portion (as per claim17) or a second portion (as per claim 18) that extends through two or more of the one or more apertures as shown in Figs. 8-10.
Re. claims 19 and 20: Ono et al. also teach another embodiment that the insulator (260) has one aperture and the magnetic core (210) is a single piece that extends through the one aperture as shown in Figs. 21 and 22 (col. 9, lines 32-42).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. in view of Freakes, and further in view of Wang et al. (PGPub 2018/0068774 A1).
Ono et al., modified by Freakes, teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent the magnetic core, which is formed by an additive manufacturing process. Wang et al. teach a process of making an inductor including a process of forming a magnetic core by an additive manufacturing process (i.e. An inductor includes a conductive coil or winding, which may be wrapped around a magnetic core. By utilizing additive manufacturing (e.g., three-dimensional printing) technologies, a core may be manufactured with a non-uniform magnetic permeability distribution (e.g., a non-uniform magnetic permeability that varies from location to location within the core, paragraph [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating an insulator for a transformer or an inductor of Ono et al., modified by Freakes, by forming a magnetic core by an additive manufacturing process as taught by Wang et al. in order to achieve a desired magnetic permeability of the core.
Re. claim 15: Even though Ono et al., modified by Freakes and Wang et al., silent whether the magnetic core and the insulator are formed at the same time, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable conditions involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). The applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Re. claim 16: Since the insulator is made by the additive manufacturing process in Freakes, it is generally known to the person skilled in the art that both additive manufacturing processes are equivalent and can be interchanged with one another where circumstances make it desirable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claims 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights