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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 15-23) in the reply filed on 10/21/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/21/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method formats subject matter of method claims 15-16 entirely must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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 CFR 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.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because no process or method manufacturing drawing for elected method claims 15-23. The following (e.g., method manufacturing drawing format) is suggested.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract should have been revised to reflect method invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising:” (preamble line 1) should be updated to: -- “comprising steps of:”--
“a); b); c);” (claim 15, lines 2, 3, 6) should be deleted to reflect changes as suggested in preamble line 1 above.
Similar to the above applied to dependent claims 17, 19 where the terms (e.g., a); b); c); d)) should be deleted, for clarity of the method claim formats.
Claims 19-23 appears to be in wrong claim formats appears to be structure rather than method, (e.g., “is disposed” line 4, claim 19, and lines 1-2 of claims 20-21; “is transmitted” (claim 22, line 2); “is/are not positive method limitations) and should be rewritten to positive method limitation. The use of: “disposing. . ., transmitting. . . at the starter of each limitation “ is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In this case the process of casting and screen printing and pressing process was not fully described in the specification and/or drawings in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear as to how “casting a non-magnetic material on a film to form a plurality of non-magnetic layers” (claim 15, line 2). Is unclear and confusing as to how casting on a single layer film would produce a plurality of non-magnetic layers. Please be more specific since specification and drawings is lacking of details regarding to the above step. It is also noted that in order to obtain a plurality / multiple non-magnetic layers a step of cutting and stacking the film with non-magnetic material thereon.
“the non-magnetic layer” (claim 1, line 3) lacks proper antecedent basis. Whether or not “the non-magnetic layer” here is directed to one of “the plurality of non-magnetic layers
“performing a screen-printing process on the non-magnetic layer to form a plurality of winding layers, each winding layer comprising a magnetic material body and a coil; ” (claim 15, line 3) should be rewritten to:--"screen-printing a plurality of winding layers on the non-magnetic layer, wherein each winding layer of the plurality of winding layers includes a magnetic material body and a coil;”--, for clarity of the method inventive step.
“performing a pressing process to laminate two magnetic layers and a plurality of structures, wherein each structure comprises one non-magnetic layer and one winding layer, wherein the plurality of structures are laminated between two layers of the magnetic layers”(claim 15, line 6-7) should also be updated to:--“ laminating by pressing two magnetic layers and a plurality of structures to form the laminated transformer, wherein each structure of the plurality structures comprises a non-magnetic layer and a winding layer, wherein the plurality of structures are configured to position between the two layers of magnetic layers”--, for clarity of the method claim step.
“the forming the first structure” (claim 16, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“wherein the forming the first structure comprises:” should be updated to:--“ wherein forming each of each structure of the plurality structures further comprises:”. Also, this process stage appears to be unclear and confusing because prior to the laminating a step of” providing a plurality of structure “must be provided in order for the above step to be taken place.
“wherein before forming the magnetic material body” (claim 17, line 1) is vague and indefinite should be updated to:--“prior to the screen printing to form the magnetic material body”--, since no forming process occurrence prior to the forming cited in line 1 of claim 17.
Claims 18 directed to the material structure no method limitation therefrom.
Claims 19-23 (refer to section of claim objection above).
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) 15, 19-23 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekkehard (EP 1318531) in view of Matsubayashi et al (JP 2014187276) Arai et al (20170140864).
Ekkehard discloses the product by process includes method of manufacturing a laminated transformer, the method comprising:
casting a non-magnetic material on a film 23 to form a plurality of non-magnetic layers 22d-22f (see Figs. 2-3);
performing a pressing process to laminate two magnetic layers 24’s and a plurality of structures 21, 22, wherein each structure comprises one non-magnetic layer and one winding layer, wherein the plurality of structures are laminated between two layers of the magnetic layers (see Figs. 2a-2b which depicts the above process where pressing to laminate two magnetic layers 24’s and a plurality of structures 21/22/23’s , wherein each structure comprises one non-magnetic layer and one winding layer 21, wherein the plurality of structures 21-23 are laminated between two layers 24of the magnetic layers, respectively).
The Matsubayashi et al is in silent regarding to “a screen-printing process on the non-magnetic layer to form a plurality of winding layers, each winding layer comprising a magnetic material body and a coil”. The Matsubayashi et al discloses the above (see abstract under heading solution and Fig. 1, winding coils 3, and discussion in page 3, ¶ [0003] and page 4, ¶ [0003], respectively, for screen printing process as to form winding layers 3).
Therefore, one of an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the teaching of Matsubayashi et al onto invention of Ekkehard in order to facilitate the fabrication process include the above by utilizing the available process effectiveness operation would result since both invention is in same endeavor field of invention.
As applied to claims 19-21 is/are also met by the above refer to Figs. 2a-2b of the Ekkehard.
Potential Allowable claims
Claims 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt