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 .
Claims 16-30 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16, 18, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubaki Japanese Patent Document JP 2019-198033 (hereinafter “Tsubaki”) and further in view of O’Flynn et al. U.S. Patent Application 2014/0277234 (hereinafter “O’Flynn”).
Regarding claim 16, Tsubaki teaches a choke module (refer to figs.1-4) comprising: a choke (i.e. choke coil 3)(fig.1) with a magnetic core (refer to core in the figure below)(fig.3) and at least one winding (i.e. windings 3a and 3b)(fig.1); a support (i.e. printed circuit board 1)(fig.3); at least one integrated capacitor (i.e. capacitors 4 and 5)(fig.1); and an input terminal (refer to wiring patterns 6 on the left side of figure 2)(fig.2) and an output terminal (refer to wiring patterns 6 on the right side of figure 2)(fig.2), wherein the choke is located on the support (implicit), and wherein each capacitor integrated in the support is connected to the choke only by being connected to the output terminal (implicit)(refer to capacitors 4 and 5)(fig.1); however, Tsubaki does not teach the support comprising the at least one integrated capacitor. However, O’Flynn teaches the support comprising the at least one integrated capacitor (refer to capacitor 202 and PCB 200)(fig.3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module of Tsubaki to include the integrated capacitor of O’Flynn to provide the advantage of making the device smaller and protecting the capacitor against environmental exposures (refer to O’Flynn [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Tsubaki and O’Flynn teach the choke module according to claim 16, wherein the support comprises the at least one integrated capacitor is a baseplate capacitor (i.e. O’Flynn capacitor 202)(fig.3)(refer also to O’Flynn plates 210 and 212)(fig.2).
Regarding claim 21, Tsubaki and O’Flynn teach the choke module according to claim 16, wherein the support is a main printed circuit board (i.e. Tsubaki printed wiring board 1)(fig.3)(i.e. O’Flynn PCB 200)(fig.3) into which the at least one capacitor is integrated (implicit)(refer to O’Flynn capacitor 202 and PCB 200)(fig.3) and on which at least one discrete component is arranged (i.e. Tsubaki choke coil 3)(fig.3)(i.e. O’Flynn electronic components 302)(Fig.3)(refer also to O’Flynn [0029]).
Regarding claim 22, Tsubaki and O’Flynn teach the choke module according to claim 16, wherein the choke and the at least one integrated capacitor are interconnected such that a signal applied at the input terminal of the choke module is processed at the choke before it is processed at any one of the at least one integrated capacitor (implicit)(refer to Tsubaki figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, Tsubaki and O’Flynn teach the choke module according to claim 16, wherein each of the at least one integrated capacitor is connected to ground (refer to Tsubaki capacitors 4 and 5 and ground pattern 2)(fig.1).
Regarding claim 24, Tsubaki and O’Flynn teach the choke module according to claim 16, wherein the integrated capacitor is formed by layers of the support (refer to O’Flynn [0026]).
Claim(s) 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubaki and O’Flynn as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent Application 2007/0257759 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 25, Tsubaki and O’Flynn teach the choke module according to claim 16; however, they do not teach wherein the magnetic core comprises a first core part comprising a first material and a second core part comprising a second material, and wherein the first material is different from the second material. However, Lee teaches wherein the magnetic core comprises a first core part (i.e. magnetic body 42)(fig.4B) comprising a first material (refer to [0012]) and a second core part (i.e. core 402)(fig.4B) comprising a second material (refer to [0009]), and wherein the first material is different from the second material (implicit). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module of Tsubaki and O’Flynn to include the magnetic core of Lee to provide the advantage of eliminating both differential and common mode noise (refer to Lee [0002])
Regarding claim 26, Tsubaki, O’Flynn, and Lee teach the choke module according to claim 25, wherein the first material is MgZn (refer to Lee [0012]).
Regarding claim 27, Tsubaki, O’Flynn, and Lee teach the choke module according to claim 25, wherein the second material is NiZn (refer to Lee [0009]).
Regarding claim 28, Tsubaki, O’Flynn, and Lee teach the choke module according to claim 25; however they do not teach wherein a volume of the second core part is smaller than a volume of the first core part. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a volume of the second core part is smaller than a volume of the first core part, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module of Tsubaki, O’Flynn, and Lee to include wherein a volume of the second core part is smaller than a volume of the first core part to provide the advantage of balancing the permeability.
Regarding claim 29, Tsubaki, O’Flynn, and Lee teach the choke module according to claim 25, wherein the first core part and the second core part are each ring shaped and differ in their diameter (implicit)(refer to Lee figure 4B).
Regarding claim 30, Tsubaki, O’Flynn, and Lee teach the choke module according to claim 25, wherein the choke module is a common mode choke (i.e. Tsubaki common mode choke coil 3)(fig.1) configured to reduce electromagnetic interference noise (implicit)(refer to Tsubaki figure 1)(refer also to Lee [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 17 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 17, especially wherein the input terminal of the choke module penetrates each of the at least one integrated capacitor and has no connection with any of the at least one integrated capacitor. Claims 19 and 20 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 19, especially wherein the baseplate capacitor comprises: at least one plate-shaped ground terminal configured to be connected to a grounded surface, and an input end and an output end, wherein the input terminal of the choke module is arranged in close proximity to the input end of the baseplate capacitor, wherein the output terminal of the choke module is arranged in close proximity to the output end of the baseplate capacitor, and wherein all plate-shaped ground terminals of the baseplate capacitor are arranged at the output end of the baseplate capacitor. Claim 20 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter based on its dependency on claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838