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 .
Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of Amendment filed June 8, 2026.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0395162 A1) in view of Waeckerle et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0027641 A1) and Snyder (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2008/0007382 A1).
For claim 1, Sridhar et al. disclose the claimed invention comprising: a ferromagnetic material having discrete particles (see the Abstract, and paragraph [0008]), the particles aligned in a single unified crystallographic direction (i.e. "a magnetic field is applied so as to magnetically align the ferromagnetic particles", see paragraph [0008]). Sridhar et al. however do not specifically disclose a monolithic, hollow rectangle comprised of a structural material that holds the ferromagnetic material; and a winding comprised of wires wound around the monolithic, hollow rectangle to form a core.
Waeckerle et al. disclose a core material (reference numeral 49) having the shape of a hollow rectangle (see figure 7) which when applied to the ferromagnetic material of Sridhar et al. would disclose a hollow rectangle comprised of a structural material that holds the ferromagnetic material, and Waeckerle et al. also disclose a winding (reference numerals 54-56) comprised of wires wound around the hollow rectangle to form a core (reference numeral 49, see figure 7). Having a monolithic rectangle is a known skill as exhibited by Snyder (reference numeral 102, see figure 4), which when applied to the core of Waeckerle et al. would disclose a monolithic, hollow rectangle, with wires wound around the monolithic, hollow rectangle to form a core.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shape of a hollow rectangle and also have the winding wires as disclosed by Waeckerle et al., and the monolithic rectangle as disclosed by Snyder, for the ferromagnetic material of Sridhar et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating proper core functioning in the device.
For claim 2, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder disclose the claimed invention except for the electrical core having holes arranged in the monolithic, hollow rectangle to accommodate the wires. Waeckerle et al. further disclose holes (i.e. space in between lateral branches 50, 51, 52 of core 49) arranged in the hollow rectangle to accommodate the wires (reference numerals 54-56, see figure 7), which when combined with the monolithic rectangle of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder would disclose the electrical core having holes arranged in the monolithic, hollow rectangle to accommodate the wires. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holes as disclosed by Waeckerle et al. for the wires of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating proper core functioning in the device.
For claim 7, Sridhar et al. disclose the particles comprising one of iron, iron silicide, and iron silicon aluminum (i.e. iron, see paragraphs [0039, 0041]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kong (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0006511 A1).
For claim 3, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder disclose the claimed invention except for the electrical core having grooves to accommodate the wires. Having grooves for accommodating the wires is a known skill as exhibited by Kong (i.e. grooves 221 for accommodating coil C, see figures 1-3), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for having the grooves as disclosed by Kong for the core of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating proper assembly of the winding component.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piech et al. (US Patent No.: 5613188).
For claims 4 and 6, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder disclose the claimed invention except for the structural material comprising aluminum. Having aluminum is a known skill as exhibited by Piech et al. (see column 4, lines 59-66), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the aluminum as disclosed by Piech et al. for the structural material of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating conductive properties in the device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tung et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2006/0273670 A1).
For claim 5, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder disclose the claimed invention except for the structural material comprising a polymer binder. Having a polymer binder is a known skill as exhibited by Tung et al. (see paragraph [0041]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polymer binder as disclosed by Tung et al. for the structural material of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. and Snyder for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating functional assembly of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Also, In response to applicant's assertion that Sridhar does not disclose the particles being magnetically aligned to a unified crystallographic direction since Sridhar discloses moving particles in the matrix material to form chains in at least two directions, this was not found persuasive since Sridhar et al. still disclose the particles 11 being aligned along the magnetic field direction B as shown in figure 5, which would constitute "the particles aligned in a single unified crystallographic direction" as required in applicant's claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX W MOK whose telephone number is (571)272-9084. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/ALEX W MOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights