DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8 and 9 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2012/0188040 A1, hereafter “Ogawa”) in view of Liang et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2013/0099884 A1, hereinafter “Liang”).
With respect to claim 1, Ogawa teaches a magnetic device 10-1 (FIGs. 1-4), comprising:
a T-shaped magnetic core 11, comprising a magnetic powder (para. [0044]), wherein the T-shaped magnetic core comprises a base 11a and a pillar 11b, wherein the base comprises a top surface (upper surface) and a bottom surface (lower surface) opposite to the top surface, and the pillar is located on the top surface of the base;
a coil 14, wound on the pillar; and
a magnetic body 15, encapsulating the pillar and the coil, wherein the magnetic body and the bottom surface of the base form an outer surface of the magnetic device;
said two electrodes ET1 and ET2 being electrically connected to two leads 14b and 14c of the coil (paras. [0043], [0044] and [00489]).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ogawa does not expressly teach
wherein μC×Hsat(Oe) ≥ 1800, where μC is a permeability of the T-shaped magnetic core, and Hsat(Oe) is a strength of the magnetic field at 80% of μC0, where μC0 is the permeability of the T-shaped magnetic core when the strength of the magnetic field is 0.
However, in paragraph [0025] of the originally specification of the present invention, the T-shaped magnetic core is made with, for example, “Fe-Si alloy powder, Fe-Si-Al alloy power, Fe-Ni alloy power, Fe-Ni-Mo alloy powder” or “a combination of two or more thereof.” Similarly, in Ogawa, the T-shaped magnetic core is made with Fe-Si-Al alloy (para. [0044]). Therefore, the T-shaped magnetic core of Ogawa would have the “wherein μC×Hsat(Oe) ≥ 1800, where μC is a permeability of the T-shaped magnetic core, and Hsat(Oe) is a strength of the magnetic field at 80% of μC0, where μC0 is the permeability of the T-shaped magnetic core when the strength of the magnetic field is 0” as claimed, or a person with ordinary skill in the art could derive the claimed limitations, without undue experimentations, to get the needed magnetic properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed limitation, as would be obvious over Ogawa, to provide the desired permeability and or saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
Ogawa does not also expressly teach
wherein two electrodes are embedded in the base,
wherein the base has two recesses respectively located on two lateral sides of the base, the two recesses respectively receiving said two leads of the coil with said two leads being respectively in contact with the two electrodes via the two recesses;
wherein the two recesses extend to the bottom surface of the base from the top surface of the base.
Liang teaches a magnetic device 100 (FIG. 1),
wherein two electrodes 13 are embedded in the base,
wherein the base 112 has two recesses 114 and 115 respectively located on two lateral sides of the base, the two recesses respectively receiving said two leads 121 of the coil 12 with said two leads being respectively in contact with the two electrodes via the two recesses;
wherein the two recesses extend to the bottom surface (lower surface) of the base from the top surface (upper surface) of the base (paras. [0027] and [0028]).
PNG
media_image2.png
549
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the recesses as taught by Liang to the magnetic device of Ogawa to improve mechanical stability of the connection between the electrode the leads of the coil.
With respect to claim 2, Ogawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic device of claim 1, wherein the magnetic device is an inductor (Ogawa, para. [0004], Liang, para. [0002]).
With respect to claim 3, Ogawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic device of claim 2. Ogawa in view of Liang does not expressly teach the wherein μCx Hsat ≥ 2250. However, as stated in the rejection of claim 1, the present invention and Ogawa use the same magnetic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed limitation, as would be obvious over Ogawa, to provide the desired permeability and or saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 4, Ogawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic device of claim 2. Ogawa in view of Liang does not expressly teach the wherein μCx Hsat≥2520. However, as stated in the rejection of claim 1, the present invention and Ogawa use the same magnetic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed limitation, as would be obvious over Ogawa, to provide the desired permeability and or saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 5, Ogawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic device of claim 2. Ogawa in view of Liang does not expressly teach the magnetic powder comprises Fe—Si alloy powder, wherein the permeability of the T-shaped magnetic core is between 48 and 108. However, as stated in the rejection of claim 1, the present invention and Ogawa use the same magnetic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed limitation, as would be obvious over Ogawa, to provide the desired permeability and or saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 6, Ogawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic device of claim 2, wherein the magnetic powder comprises Fe—Si—Al alloy powder (Ogawa, para. [0044]). Ogawa in view of Liang does not expressly teach the permeability of the T-shaped magnetic core is between 48 and 150. However, as stated in the rejection of claim 1, the present invention and Ogawa use the same magnetic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed limitation, as would be obvious over Ogawa, to provide the desired permeability and or saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 8, Ogawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic device of claim 2. Ogawa in view of Liang does not expressly teach μB×Hsat_B(Oe)≥2250, where μB is a permeability of the magnetic body, and Hsat_B(Oe) is a strength of the magnetic field at 80% of μB0, where μB0 is the permeability of the magnetic body when the strength of the magnetic field is 0. However, as stated in the rejection of claim 1, the present invention and Ogawa use the same magnetic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed limitation, as would be obvious over Ogawa, to provide the desired permeability and or saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 9, Ogawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic device of claim 1, wherein the magnetic device is a choke (Ogawa, para. [0004], Liang, para. [0004]).
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 MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights