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 .
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.
1 Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (CN 203311969) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 4,845,454).
Regarding claim 1, You et al. (figures 1-4 and page 2) discloses a first iron core (3) including two first electrode portions (34/35) and two second electrode portions (34/35); a second iron core (4) disposed above the first iron core, wherein the first iron core and the second iron core are adhered to each other (see figure 4),a first coil (5) wound around the first iron core and the second iron core; and a second coil (6) wound around the first iron core and the second iron core (see figure 4).
You et al. does not expressly discloses wherein all surfaces of the second core is coated with an insulating layer.
Watanabe et al. (figure 10/15 and Col 5, lines 15-62) discloses a teaching wherein all surfaces of the second core (50c) is coated with an insulating layer (43).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein all surfaces of the second core is coated with an insulating layer as taught by Watanabe et al to the inductive device of You et al so as to reduce eddy current losses, preventing short circuits, and improves overall device efficiency. Thereby minimizing heat generation, protects against corrosion, and extends the operational lifespan of electrical equipment.
Regarding claim 2, You et al. (figures 1-4) discloses wherein the first iron core includes two first longitudinal columns and two first transverse columns that are connected to the two first longitudinal columns, the second iron core includes two second longitudinal columns and two second transverse columns that are connected to the two second longitudinal columns, the two first electrode portions are disposed on a bottom of one of the two first transverse columns, and the two second electrode portions are disposed on a bottom of another one of the two first transverse column
Regarding claim 3, You et al. (figures 1-4) discloses wherein the two first longitudinal columns respectively correspond to the two second longitudinal columns, the two first transverse columns respectively correspond to the two second transverse columns, the first coil is wound around one of the two first longitudinal columns and a corresponding one of the two second longitudinal columns, and the second coil is wound around another one of the two first longitudinal columns and a corresponding one of the two second longitudinal columns.
Regarding claim 6, You et al. (page 2) discloses wherein an impedance of the first iron core is greater than an impedance of the second iron core.(see page disclosing the material make-up of the core that giving the first core the capability of being greater than an impedance of the second iron core)
Regarding claim 7, You et al. (page 2) discloses wherein the impedance of the first iron core is greater than 1 M ohm, and the impedance of the second iron core is less than 0.1 M ohm.(see page disclosing the material make-up of the cores that gives the first and second core the capability of wherein the impedance of the first iron core is greater than 1 M ohm, and the impedance of the second iron core is less than 0.1 M ohm)
Regarding claim 8, You et al. (page 2) discloses wherein a material of the first iron core includes Ni-Zn, and a material of the second iron core includes Mn-Zn, amorphous alloy or nanocrystalline.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of two references will give the capability wherein an impedance of the second iron core after being coated with the insulating layer is greater than 1 M ohm. It would be obvious to wherein an impedance of the second iron core after being coated with the insulating layer is greater than 1 M ohm
to one oof ordinarily skilled in the art so as to prevents short circuits and restricts eddy currents. Thereby drastically reducing energy losses as heat, protects against electrical erosion, and maximizing the efficiency of inductive device.
2 Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 211208138) in view of You et al. (CN 203311969) and Yoshikawa et al. (US 2021/0327639)
Regarding claim 1, Wu (figures 1-8 and pages 2-3) discloses a first core (1) including two first electrode portions (see figures 2-3) and two second electrode portions (figures 2-3); a second iron core (2) disposed above the first iron core, wherein the first iron core and the second iron core are adhered to each other (see figure 2),a first coil (see figure 6) wound around the first core and the second core; and a second coil (see figure 6) wound around the first core and the second core (see figure 4).
Wu does not expressly disclose wherein the core cores comprise an iron material and wherein all surfaces of the second core is coated with an insulating layer.
You et al. (page 2) discloses a teaching wherein the core cores comprise an iron material
Yoshikawa et al. (figure 7 and para 0067-0070) discloses a teaching wherein all surfaces of the second core (see the top core 51/52 on figure 7) is coated with an insulating layer (5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention all surfaces of the second core is coated with an insulating layer as taught by You et al. to the inductive device of WU so as to allow the inductive device characteristics of high magnetic permeability and high saturation flux density.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein all surfaces of the second core is coated with an insulating layer as taught by Yoshikawa et al. to the inductive device of WU so as to reduce eddy current losses, preventing short circuits, and improves overall device efficiency. Thereby minimizing heat generation, protects against corrosion, and extends the operational lifespan of electrical equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Wu (figures 1-8) discloses wherein the first iron core includes two first longitudinal columns and two first transverse columns that are connected to the two first longitudinal columns, the second iron core includes two second longitudinal columns and two second transverse columns that are connected to the two second longitudinal columns, the two first electrode portions are disposed on a bottom of one of the two first transverse columns, and the two second electrode portions are disposed on a bottom of another one of the two first transverse column
Regarding claim 3, Wu (figures 1-8) discloses wherein the two first longitudinal columns respectively correspond to the two second longitudinal columns, the two first transverse columns respectively correspond to the two second transverse columns, the first coil is wound around one of the two first longitudinal columns and a corresponding one of the two second longitudinal columns, and the second coil is wound around another one of the two first longitudinal columns and a corresponding one of the two second longitudinal columns.
Regarding claim 6, Wu (pages 2-3) discloses wherein an impedance of the first iron core is greater than an impedance of the second iron core.(see page disclosing the material make-up of the core that giving the first core the capability of being greater than an impedance of the second iron core)
Regarding claim 7, Wu (figures 1-8) discloses wherein the impedance of the first iron core is greater than 1 M ohm, and the impedance of the second iron core is less than 0.1 M ohm.(see page disclosing the material make-up of the cores that gives the first and second core the capability of wherein the impedance of the first iron core is greater than 1 M ohm, and the impedance of the second iron core is less than 0.1 M ohm)
Regarding claim 8, Wu (pages 2-3) discloses wherein a material of the first iron core includes Ni-Zn, and a material of the second iron core includes Mn-Zn, amorphous alloy or nanocrystalline.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshikawa et al. (para 0069) discloses wherein a material of the insulating layer includes high polymer.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of two references will give the capability wherein an impedance of the second iron core after being coated with the insulating layer is greater than 1 M ohm. It would be obvious to wherein an impedance of the second iron core after being coated with the insulating layer is greater than 1 M ohm
to one of ordinarily skilled in the art so as to prevents short circuits and restricts eddy currents. Thereby drastically reducing energy losses as heat, protects against electrical erosion, and maximizing the efficiency of inductive device.
Regarding claim 12, Wu (figures 1-8 and pages 2-3) discloses the claimed invention except for a ratio of a volume of the first iron core and a volume of the second iron core is 1 to 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for a ratio of a volume of the first iron core and a volume of the second iron core is 1 to 1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. It would have been an obvious design choice to design wherein for a ratio of a volume of the first iron core and a volume of the second iron core is 1 to 1, so as to equalizes magnetic flux density across both core segments which will optimize magnetic flux distribution and also reduce total eddy current and hysteresis losses thereby maximizing energy efficiency.
3 Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (CN 203311969) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 4,845,454) in further view of Wu et al. (US 20140097931).
Regarding claim 4, the modified inductive device of You et al. (figures 1-4 and page 2) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein the two first electrode portions and the two second electrode portions have arc-shaped concave surfaces.
Wu et al. (figures 6 and para 0063) discloses a teaching of electrode portions with arc shaped concave portions
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design electrode portions with arc shaped concave portions as taught by Wu et al. to the inductive device of You et al. so as to improve electric field distribution, enhance surface contact, and optimizing material interactions thereby also reducing the chances of the coil leads being damaged.
Regarding claim 5, You et al. (figure 4 and page 2) discloses wherein one end of the first coil is connected to one of the two first electrode portions, another end of the first coil is connected to one of the two second electrode portions, one end of the second coil is connected to another one of the two first electrode portions, and another end of the second coil is connected to another one of the two second electrode portions
4 Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (CN 203311969) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 4,845,454) in further view of Huang et al. (US 8686822).
Regarding claim 4, the modified inductive device of You et al. (figures 1-4 and page 2) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein the two first electrode portions and the two second electrode portions have arc-shaped concave surfaces.
Huang et al. (figures 1, 3, 6 and Col 2, lines 20-55) discloses a teaching of the two first electrode portions (40/401) and the two second electrode portions (40/401) have arc-shaped concave surfaces.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the two first electrode portions and the two second electrode portions have arc-shaped concave surfaces as taught by Huang et al. to the inductive device of You et al. so as to improve electric field distribution, enhance surface contact, and optimizing material interactions thereby also reducing the chances of the coil leads being damaged.
Regarding claim 5, You et al. (figure 4 and page 2) discloses wherein one end of the first coil is connected to one of the two first electrode portions, another end of the first coil is connected to one of the two second electrode portions, one end of the second coil is connected to another one of the two first electrode portions, and another end of the second coil is connected to another one of the two second electrode portions.
. 7 Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 211208138) in view of You et al. (CN 203311969) and Yoshikawa et al. (US 2021/0327639) in further view of Roellgen et al (US 20120146756)
Regarding claim 10, the modified inductive device of Wu (figures 1-8 and pages 2-3) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the insulating layer ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
Roellgen et al. (para 0023) discloses a teaching wherein a thickness of the insulating layer ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein a thickness of the insulating layer ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.as taught by Roellgen et al. to the modified inductive device of You et al. so as to make a more compact device which will save in material cost while also designing the material wide enough to prevent short circuiting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights