NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/579,229, entitled CORE AND METHOD OF PRODUCING CORE.
Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
I. PRIORITY
Examiner acknowledges that the present application is a national stage of PCT/JP2022/009836, filed March 8, 2022. Examiner further acknowledges the claim of foreign priority to JP2021-130281, filed August 6, 2021.
II. OBJECTION TO THE DRAWINGS
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. §1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore the feature of “the linear material is stacked in a direction of magnetic flux of a magnetic circuit in which the core is incorporated” as recited in claims 6 and 12 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Specifically, the circuit in which the core is incorporated and how the direction of magnetic flux is oriented should be shown. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
III. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 1-13 recite “bending the linear material” and “forming the linear material into a design shape.” However, Examiner is unable to determine from these claims the nature of these steps. Specifically, if the material is bent, is it also formed? Are these steps separate or the same general step? Following a careful review of the specification, Examiner finds the specification merely repeats the steps of bending and forming with much detail thereof. For example, the specification does not disclose or describe how the linear material is bent or is formed. Rather, the specification, for example, merely states the linear material is subjected to bending and forming steps to achieve the round shape shown in FIG. 3. No detail of the bending or forming is specifically described. Furthermore, no apparatus is shown that performs these steps. Is there is shape form around which the linear material is bent? Is a coil form used to provide a shape? How does an unknown machine perform these steps? Or are the steps performed by hand? Examiner finds the specification does not disclose or discuss the particular parameters of the bending or forming. Furthermore, based on this lack of disclosure of bending and forming, Examiner is unable to even determine if they are distinct steps or merely occur at the same time, i.e., bending the linear material to form a specific shape. Based on this lack of disclosure of the nature of the bending or forming steps or whether they are even distinct steps, Examiner is unable to discern the nature of these steps even when read in light of the specification.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 1-13 recite “cutting an excess of the linear material when there is the excess.” However, Examiner does not find the claims define the scope of what is an “excess” in the context of the claims. What does it mean to have an excess under the broadest reasonable interpretation? Furthermore, the claims are entirely conditional on “when there is the excess” and thus Examiner finds the claims unclear as to whether even the step of cutting this undefined excess is even required within the context of the claim.
Claims 7 and 13 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 7 and 13 recite cutting is perform “at a portion that does not need to be insulated from an outside.” Examiner finds this feature is dependent on some undefined “need” of the core, which is dependent on what the core is incorporated into or some other constraint, neither of which is defined or recited in the claims. Accordingly, Examiner find that one having ordinary skill in the art would not understand what is the “need” of the core and thus where this cutting should occur. Furthermore, any cutting of the core will expose the core and thus will have no insulation at the cutting point. Thus, any such cutting may presumably meet this limitation.
IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiner further finds that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner concludes that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiner’s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
Special Interpretation (1) - Product by Process
Examiner finds that claims 8-13 are written as product-by-process claims. Specifically, Examiner finds that these claims are product claims directed to a core, but this core is being limited by method steps of its forming. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Thus, Examiner will interpret claims 8-13 along these guidelines.
Specific Interpretation (2) - Preamble
Examiner finds the preambles of claims 1-13 recite “to be used in a manner of arranging a plurality of the cores in an annular shape” which merely recites an intended “use” of the core in some undisclosed or required assembly. Furthermore, the body of the claims do not recite or require any detail of multiple such cores or any arrangement thereof. Furthermore, Examiner is unable to determine whether the preamble results in any structural difference of the singular core required in the claim. Thus, the body of the claim does not breathe life into this intended use. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner does not find this intended use in the preamble as limiting.
Specific Interpretation (3) – bending and forming
Following a careful review of the specification, Examiner finds the specification merely repeats the steps of bending and forming with much detail thereof. For example, the specification does not disclose or describe how the linear material is bent or is formed. Rather, the specification, for example, merely states the linear material is subjected to a bending and forming step to achieve the round shape shown in FIG. 3. No detail of the bending or forming is specifically described. Is there is shape form around which the linear material is bent? Is a coil form used to provide a shape? Examiner finds the specification does not disclose or discuss the particular parameters of the bending or forming. Furthermore, based on this lack of disclosure of bending and forming, Examiner is unable to even determine if they are distinct steps or merely occur at the same time, i.e., bending the linear material to form a specific shape. Based on this lack of disclosure of the nature of the bending or forming steps or whether they are even distinct steps, Examiner will interpret these steps as merely some process of taking a linear material and forming/bending it into a desired shape.
V. COMPACT PROSECUTION
The Examiner finds that because claims 1-13 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(2nd ¶) as outlined above, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible in the following art rejections. Thus, for purposes of examination in view of the broadest interpretation regarding the conditional limitation (i.e., the “when” clause), Examiner will interpret claim 1-13 as not meeting the condition and thus the cutting step is not required. Furthermore, Examiner will interpret claims 7 and 13 as merely any cutting in a desired location since the claims only require cutting the core since any cutting will expose the core, i.e., not be insulated from outside the core. Finally, Examiner will interpret the bending and forming step as either two steps or the same step as merely some process of forming/bending a linear material into a desired shape.
VI. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
VI.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying Decristofaro
Claims 1-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0201864 to Nickolas Descristofaro et al. (hereinafter the “Descristofaro”).
Regarding claim 1, Decristofaro discloses:
1. A method for producing a core to be used in a manner of arranging a plurality of the cores in an annular shape, the method comprising:
See Decristofaro FIGS. 4 and 5, reprinted below, illustrating the steps of producing a core and the locations wherein the core may be cut. Further see
PNG
media_image1.png
166
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Descristofaro FIG. 4 Decristofaro FIG. 5
Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]wo components 10 may be formed by cutting the short sides 74, leaving the radiused corners 76 connected to the long sides 78a and 78b.” Thus, the core 70 shown in FIG. 5 is cut into two u-shaped core pieces spaced apart. Thus, they would be arrangeable in “an annular shape” in the same manner as shown in FIG. 3 of the present application.
bending a linear material that is a magnetic material;
See Decristofaro FIG. 4 above, note magnetic material 22 is bent into a roll 30 and further is bent around the coil form 60. Further see Decristofaro ¶0053 wherein “[t]he ferromagnetic material may be formed by using a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process to produce a high-quality ferromagnetic strip. For example, sheets of high silicon content Fe-base alloys can be produced by subjecting steel strip to siliconization at temperatures between 1023.degree. and 1200.degree. centigrade by CVD in a non-oxidizing gas atmosphere containing SiCl.sub.4 and then performing a diffusion treatment to diffuse Si uniformly through the steel strip.”
forming the linear material into a design shape; and
See Decristofaro FIG. 4 above, note magnetic material 22 is bent into a roll 30 and further is bent and formed around the coil form/mandrel 60. See also Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, “a bulk high saturation induction metal magnetic component 10 is formed by winding a single ferromagnetic high saturation induction metal strip 22 or a group of ferromagnetic high saturation induction metal strips 22 around a generally rectangular mandrel 60 to form a generally rectangular wound core 70” (emphasis added by Examiner).
cutting an excess of the linear material when there is the excess.
See Decristofaro FIG. 5 above, note core 70 shown in cut along the dotted lines shown as desired. Further see Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]wo components 10 may be formed by cutting the short sides 74, leaving the radiused corners 76 connected to the long sides 78a and 78b.” Thus, if the u-shaped core portions are desired, the excess sections 74 are cut from the core 70.
Regarding claim 2, Decristofaro discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein:
2. The method for producing a core according to claim 1, wherein the linear material is coated, and the method further comprises heating and self-fusing the linear material.
See Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]he core 70 is impregnated with an epoxy resin and cured to adhesively bond together the layers of the core.”
Regarding claim 3, Decristofaro discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein:
3. The method for producing a core according to claim 1, further comprising bonding the linear material with an adhesive.
See Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]he core 70 is impregnated with an epoxy resin and cured to adhesively bond together the layers of the core.”
Regarding claim 4, Decristofaro discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein:
4. The method for producing a core according to claim 1, further comprising adding silicon to the linear material by a CVD method.
See Decristofaro ¶0053 wherein “[t]he ferromagnetic material may be formed by using a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process to produce a high quality ferromagnetic strip. For example, sheets of high silicon content Fe-base alloys can be produced by subjecting steel strip to siliconization at temperatures between 1023.degree. and 1200.degree. centigrade by CVD in a non-oxidizing gas atmosphere containing SiCl.sub.4, and then performing a diffusion treatment to diffuse Si uniformly through the steel strip.”
Regarding claim 5, Decristofaro discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein:
5. The method for producing a core according to claim 1, wherein the design shape is a shape including a plurality of cores.
See Decristofaro FIG. 5 above, note core 70 shown in cut along the dotted lines shown as desired. Further see Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]wo components 10 may be formed by cutting the short sides 74, leaving the radiused corners 76 connected to the long sides 78a and 78b. Additional magnetic components 10 may be formed by removing the radiused corners 76 from the long sides 78a and 78b, and cutting the long sides 78a and 78b at a plurality of locations, indicated by the dashed lines 72. In the example illustrated in FIG. 5, the bulk high saturation induction metal component 10 has a generally three-dimensional rectangular shape, although other three-dimensional shapes are contemplated, for example, shapes having at least one trapezoidal or square face.” Thus, a variety of core design shapes is possible via cutting along selected dotted lines in FIG. 5.
Regarding claim 6, Decristofaro discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein:
6. The method for producing a core according to claim 1, wherein in the formation into the design shape, the linear material is stacked in a direction of a magnetic flux of a magnetic circuit in which a core is incorporated.
See Decristofaro FIG. 5 above and portion of Decristofaro quoted in discussion of FIG. 5. Further note the linear material is stacked as shown in FIG. 5. Thus, the core can be cut in a variety of places for a variety of uses and are stacked. Furthermore, the circuit is not disclosed or defined in the claim or the specification and thus is not part of the claim. Since the cores of Decristofaro disclose the stacked cores, the stacked cores meet the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Decristofaro discloses the method of claim 1 and further wherein:
7. The method for producing a core according to claim 1, wherein the linear material is cut at a portion where the core does not need to be insulated from an outside.
See Decristofaro FIG. 5 above, note core 70 shown in cut along the dotted lines shown as desired. Further see Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]wo components 10 may be formed by cutting the short sides 74, leaving the radiused corners 76 connected to the long sides 78a and 78b.” Thus, if the core 70 is cut to remove portions 74, then the core ends would not be insulated.
Regarding claim 8, which is generally the core made according to the method of claims 1-7, Decristofaro discloses:
8. A core to be used in a manner of arranging a plurality of the cores in an annular shape, the core being formed by: bending a linear material that is a magnetic material; forming the linear material into a design shape; and cutting an excess of the linear material when there is the excess.
See Decristofaro FIGS. 4 and 5, reprinted below, illustrating the steps of producing a core and the locations wherein the core may be cut. Further see Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]wo components 10 may be formed by cutting the short sides 74, leaving the radiused corners 76 connected to the long sides 78a and 78b.” Thus, the core 70 shown in FIG. 5 is cut into to u-shaped core pieces spaced apart. Thus, they would be arrangeable in “an annular shape” in the same manner as shown in FIG. 3 of the present application.
Examiner notes this claim is a product-by-process claim. Thus, since Decristofaro discloses two generally u-shaped cores made from core 70, then these cores meet the product by process claim. Nevertheless, these u-shape cores are made from the same method as claimed as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Decristofaro discloses the core of claim 8 and further wherein:
9. The core according to claim 8, wherein the linear material is coated, and the core is formed by heating and self-fusing the linear material.
See Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]he core 70 is impregnated with an epoxy resin and cured to adhesively bond together the layers of the core.”
Regarding claim 10, Decristofaro discloses the core of claim 8 and further wherein:
10. The core according to claim 8, wherein the linear material is bonded with an adhesive.
See Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]he core 70 is impregnated with an epoxy resin and cured to adhesively bond together the layers of the core.”
Regarding claim 11, Decristofaro discloses the core of claim 8 and further wherein:
11. The core according to claim 8, wherein silicon is added to the linear material by a CVD method.
See Decristofaro ¶0053 wherein “[t]he ferromagnetic material may be formed by using a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process to produce a high-quality ferromagnetic strip. For example, sheets of high silicon content Fe-base alloys can be produced by subjecting steel strip to siliconization at temperatures between 1023.degree. and 1200.degree. centigrade by CVD in a non-oxidizing gas atmosphere containing SiCl.sub.4 and then performing a diffusion treatment to diffuse Si uniformly through the steel strip.”
Regarding claim 12, Decristofaro discloses the core of claim 8 and further wherein:
12. The core according to claim 8, wherein the linear material is stacked in a direction of a magnetic flux of a magnetic circuit in which the core is incorporated.
See Decristofaro FIG. 5 above and portion of Decristofaro quoted in discussion of FIG. 5. Further note the linear material is stacked as shown in FIG. 5. Thus, the core can be cut in a variety of places for a variety of uses and are stacked. Furthermore, the circuit is not disclosed or defined in the claim or the specification and thus is not part of the claim. Since the cores of Decristofaro disclose the stacked cores, they meet the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Decristofaro discloses the core of claim 8 and further wherein:
13. The core according to claim 8, wherein the cutting is performed at a portion that does not need to be insulated from an outside.
See Decristofaro FIG. 5 above, note core 70 shown in cut along the dotted lines shown as desired. Further see Decristofaro ¶0044 wherein “[t]wo components 10 may be formed by cutting the short sides 74, leaving the radiused corners 76 connected to the long sides 78a and 78b.” Thus, if the core 70 is cut to remove portions 74, then the core ends would not be insulated.
VII. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
VII.A. Obviousness Rejections Applying Decristofaro and Benford
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decristofaro in view of PCT/US90/07585 to Susan Benford (hereinafter “Benford”). This rejection is an alternative rejection to the anticipation above to address multiple possible stack directions. Regarding these claims, Decristofaro, in FIGS. 4 and 5 above, teaches the core made from a stack of thin laminations of linear magnetic material, which are stacked in one direction. Benford, in FIGS. 10A-10E, reprinted below, teaches using core structures comprising a plurality of wire members that are stacked laterally and vertically. It would have been obvious at the time the invention
PNG
media_image3.png
114
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Benford FIGS. 10A-10E
was filed to use the laterally and vertically stacked wire cores of Benford in lieu of the thin laminations sheets of the cores of Decristofaro. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as stated and taught in Benford on page 10, “as compared to the conventional use of thin laminations of iron wherein the cross section to eddy currents become the cross section of the laminate edge, the magnetic flux return path 26 of the present invention reduces eddy current losses by forming the cross section to eddy currents as the cross section of the magnetic material wire thereby reducing resistive losses commonly found at the laminate edges in a conventional construction.”
VIII. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
IX. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-9900.
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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights