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 .
Priority
Since the related parent application under the title has been matured into a patent, therefore the Application should be updated to: --", now US patent No. 11823828” --.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/23, 2/14/24, 5/12/24 have been considered by the examiner.
An OA on the merits of pending claims 1-12 as following:
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase: “and respectively have a first connecting point and a second connecting point,” (claim 1, line 12) is unclear appears to be: --“and the both bent have a first connecting point and a second connecting point, respectively;” --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
“A method of manufacturing an inductive device comprising:” (claim 1 preamble, line 1) should be updated to:
--" A method of manufacturing an inductive device, the method comprising steps of:”--
“is defined” (claim 1, lines 13) not positively active method limitation, the use of (e.g., defining . . .” is suggested.
The phrase: “, a first imaginary connection line is defined between the first and second connecting points, and a shortest distance between the first imaginary connection line and a central axis of the through hole is less than a minimum outer radius of the coil body;” (claim 1, lines 12-16) should be rewritten into method claim formats such as:
--“defining a first imaginary connection line between the first and second connecting points, wherein, a shortest distance between the first imaginary connection line and a central axis of the through hole is less than a minimum outer radius of the coil body;” --, for clarity of the method claim formats.
It is also suggested that dependent claims 2-12 should be carefully amended to reflect changes as mentioned above.
“after the step of” (claim 2, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis, should be: -- “after the” --, for clarity of the method claim formats.
“are both located” (claim 2, line 3) not positively active method limitation, the use of (e.g., locating both of the first and second connecting points . . .) is suggested to reflect method claim formats.
Similar to claim 2 above applied to claim 4 where” after the step” (claim 4, line 1) should be: --“after the “--.
“a second imaginary connection line defined between the first and second bent starting points is contained” (claim 5, line 3) appears to be in structure formats and should be updated to: --"defining a second imaginary connection line between the first and second bent starting points” --, to reflect method claim formats.
“the step of forming the package structure further includes:” (claim 9, lines 1-2) should be updated to: --" the forming the package structure further comprises”--
“the package structure includes” (claim 11, line 1) appear to be structure form should be: -- the forming of the package structure further comprises forming”--
“that are located” (claim 11, line 2) should be deleted to reflect changes as suggested above.
“in a same direction” (claim 12, line 3-4) should be updated to: --“the same direction” to reflect one already cited in line 2 of claim 12.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung (US 20030222749) in view of Hsieh et al (US 20100308950).
Kung discloses the claimed method of manufacturing an inductive device comprising:
providing a magnetic base 18a including a core column 30 and defining a positioning trench 36 that surrounds the core column (see Fig. 2);
PNG
media_image1.png
456
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
forming a coil structure 12a including a coil body, a first extending section 16 (front side), and a second extending section 16 (back side), wherein the coil body has a through hole, the first extending section includes a first bent portion and a first terminal portion connected thereto, and the second extending section includes a second bent portion and a second terminal portion connected thereto (see Fig. 2 as reproduced above);
wherein the first bent portion and the second bent portion are both bent from the coil body 12 toward a same side of the coil body (consider downward toward bottom side portion) , and respectively have a first connecting point and a second connecting point, a first imaginary connection line A is defined between the first and second connecting points (as distance between the 16’s front and back sides), and a shortest distance between the first imaginary connection line and a central axis of the through hole C is less than a minimum outer radius of the coil body 12 (see Fig. 2 as reproduced above, and ¶¶ [0020-0023]); and
wherein the first terminal portion and the second terminal portion respectively extend from the first connecting point and the second connecting point and protrude from a side surface of the coil body (see related embodiment of Fig. 1 where the bottom side represented the claimed “a side surface of the coil body” as claimed;
arranging the coil structure in the positioning trench by sleeving the coil body around the core column (see Fig. 5, 6A), depict the assembly includes the arranged above, respectively; and
forming a package structure 18b to cover the magnetic base and the coil structure, wherein a first conductive part (outer surface of the first terminal part) of the first terminal portion and a second conductive part (outer surface of the second terminal part) of the second terminal portion are exposed outside of the package structure (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with other Figs 5-6, respectively).
If it is argued that the Kung does not teach the “a first imaginary connection line is defined between the first and second connecting points” then refers to the Hsieh et al (see Fig. 2b as reproduced below which depicts such above features including a first imaginary connection line 320a is defined between the first 320b and second connecting points 320c), respectively.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the Hsieh et al teaching includes coil forming configuration with a first imaginary connection between the first and second connecting points in order to facilitate the fabrication process by a known process. The motivation for the combination can be obtained by either reference since both are in same endeavor field invention (e.g., inductor coil device). Furthermore, it is noted that simply substitution of a known element for another element is determined to be obvious. (see MPEP §2143(b))
As applied to claim 2 as best understood is met by the above (see discussion in ¶¶ [0020-0021] of Kung in conjunction with ¶ [0080] of Hsieh et al.
As applied to claim 3 refer to ¶ [0020] of the kung in conjunction with the visual inspection would meet limitation of this claim.
As applied to claim 4, noting the Hsieh et al discloses the assembly feature of claim 4 (see Fig. 2b).
As applied to claims 6-8, refer to Fig. 2 of the Kung which depict the structure features includes the height configurations of the above claims (see Fig. 2 and discussed in ¶ [0020] of the Kung reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-12 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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Prosecution Insights