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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 and 07/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 15, 17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 12 recites “a plurality of electrically connected conductive windings” and lines 16-17 recite “said conductive windings”. For clarity and consistency, lines 16-17 should recite “said plurality of electrically connected conductive windings”. Also, lines 2, 6, 8 and 11 recite “3D-printed” and line 5 recites “3D printed”. For clarity and consistency, line 5 should recite “3D-printed”.
Regarding claim 2, lines 1-2 recites “said electrically connected conductive windings”. For clarity and consistency, lines 1-2 should recite “said plurality of electrically connected conductive windings”.
Regarding claim 3, line 2 recites “the order of 5 to 15 µm”. For clarity and consistency, line 2 should recite “the order of 5 to 15 micrometers (µm)”. Also, lines 2-3 recite “said helical arrangement of conductive windings”. For clarity and consistency, lines 2-3 should recite “said helical arrangement of electrically connected conductive windings”.
Regarding claim 4, lines 1-2 recites “said electrically connected conductive windings”. For clarity and consistency, lines 1-2 should recite “said plurality of electrically connected conductive windings”.
Regarding claim 6, lines 1-2 recites “said electrically connected conductive windings”. For clarity and consistency, lines 1-2 should recite “said plurality of electrically connected conductive windings”.
Regarding claim 7, line 2 recites “said a plurality of electrically connected conductive windings”. For clarity and consistency, line 2 should recite “said plurality of electrically connected conductive windings”.
Claims 5 and 8-9 depending from claim 1 and/or 4 are objected for the same reasons mentioned above.
Regarding claims 1, 9-11, 15, 17 and 19-20, the claims recite “-“. For clarity and consistency, the “-“ should be removed.
Regarding claim 19, lines 2, 6 and 8 recite “3D-printed” and lines 4 and 12 recite “3D printed”. For clarity and consistency, lines 4 and 12 should recite “3D-printed”. Also, line 5 recites “the at least one electric coil” and lines 10-11 recite “said electric coil”. For clarity and consistency, lines 10-11 should recite “the at least one electric coil”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 1-9 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 1 recites “an electric component comprising one or more electric coils”, lines 3-4 recite “an open magnetic circuit configuration of at least one electric coil of said one or more electric coils”, line 6 recites “at least one electric coil”, line 10 recites “the at least one electric coil” and line 11 recites “said at least one electric coil”. It is not clear from the recitations in lines 3-4, 6 and 10-11 if it refers to the same “at least one electric coil”. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that lines 3-4, 6 and 10-11 recites “the at least one electric coil”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "after said sintering" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, line 1 recites “one or more electric coils” and line 5 recites “at least one electric coil”. It is not clear if line 5 refers to the same “one or more electric coil”. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that line 5 recites “at least one electric coil of said one or more electric coils”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940).
Regarding claim 1, PENG teaches an electric component (100) comprising one or more electric coils, the electric component is formed by 3D printing of at least three different 3D-printed materials with spatial distributions yielding an open magnetic circuit configuration of at least one electric coil of said one or more electric coils; and wherein the electric component comprises: a bulk (122 and 124) formed by non-magnetic and dielectric 3D printed material (as shown in fig. 1a-1b); and at least one electric coil (as shown in fig. 1a) of the open magnetic circuit configuration, 3D-printed in said bulk (as shown in fig. 3a-3f), comprising: at least one magnetic channel (120) comprising magnetic material 3D-printed in said bulk forming a magnetic core of the at least one electric coil (as shown in fig. 1b and disclosed in para. 0017); and at least one electric channel (133 and 135) forming an inductor of said at least one electric coil comprising conductive material 3D-printed in said bulk (122 and 124) with a coil/helical geometry having a plurality of electrically connected conductive windings arranged to circumference the magnetic channel (120) of the magnetic core (as shown in fig. 1a-1b and disclosed in para. 0017); wherein the magnetic channel (120) of the magnetic core is configured and operable with said open magnetic circuit configuration and comprises magnetic material (nickel iron, for example, as disclosed in para. 0017) occupying a central region of the coil/helical geometry of the inductor while not enclosing said conductive windings with a closed loop of said magnetic material (as shown in fig. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 2, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, PENG teaches wherein said electrically connected conductive windings comprise conductive windings (133 and 135) distributed at different 3D printed layers of said electric component thereby forming a helical arrangement of electrically connected conductive windings (as shown in fig. 1a, 1b, 3e and 3f).
Regarding claim 4, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, PENG teaches wherein said electrically connected conductive windings comprise plurality of conductive windings (133 and 135) arranged concentrically in one or more 3D printed layers of said electric component thereby forming a spiral arrangement of conductive windings in said the one or more 3D printed layers (as shown in fig. 1a, 1b, 3e and 3f).
Regarding claim 5, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 4, in addition, PENG teaches wherein a resolution of said 3D printed layers, after said sintering, is in the order of 15 to 30 µm (120 is 10 µm and 133/135 are 20 µm, as disclosed in para. 0017-0018), thereby yielding a pitch of said spiral arrangement of conductive windings in the order of twice the resolution of said 3D printed layers with respect to a lateral plane of said 3D printed layers (as small as 50 µm. as disclosed in para. 0018).
Regarding claim 6, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 5, in addition, PENG teaches wherein said electrically connected conductive windings comprise a plurality of said spiral arrangement of conductive windings (133 and 135) distributed at different 3D printed layers of said bulk (as shown in fig. 1b) and electrically connected between them to form a spiral-helical arrangement of said electrically connected conductive windings (as shown in fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 7, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, PENG teaches wherein spacings between adjacent windings (133 and 135) of said a plurality of electrically connected conductive windings are occupied by 3D printed non-electrically-conductive material being one of said non-magnetic dielectric material and said 3D-printed magnetic material (124) (as shown in fig. 1b and disclosed in para. 0018).
Regarding claim 9, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, PENG teaches wherein at least one of the following: said conductive material comprises Silver; said conductive material comprises Copper; said conductive material comprises Silver-Palladium alloy; said magnetic material comprises Ceramic-Ferrite material; said magnetic material comprises Metal Material (nickel iron, as disclosed in para. 0017); said magnetic material is a soft magnetic material having relative permeability pr in the order of 100 or more, said non-magnetic dielectric material comprises ceramic or glass-ceramic material.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940) in view of HANCOCK (WO 2020/141165 A1).
Regarding claim 3, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 2.
PENG fails to specifically teach wherein a thickness of said 3D printed layers is in the order of 5 to 15 µm thereby yielding a pitch of said helical arrangement of conductive windings in the order of twice the pitch of said 3D printed layers being about 10µm to 30µm along a printing direction of said 3D printed layers. However, HANCOCK teaches wherein a thickness of said 3D printed layers is in the order of 5 to 15 µm thereby yielding a pitch of said helical arrangement of conductive windings in the order of twice the pitch of said 3D printed layers being about 10µm to 30µm along a printing direction of said 3D printed layers (as disclosed in para. 0133).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the thickness of said 3D printed layers in the order of 5 to 15 µm thereby yielding a pitch of said helical arrangement of conductive windings in the order of twice the pitch of said 3D printed layers being about 10µm to 30µm along a printing direction of said 3D printed layers as taught by HANCOCK with the invention of PENG in order to fabricate a compact and efficient electric component.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940).
Regarding claim 8, PENG teaches the limitations of claim 1.
PENG (embodiment of fig. 1a-1b) fails to specifically teach wherein the 3D-printed conductive material of the inductor is fully embedded within said bulk and not exposed at external surfaces of said bulk, so as to isolate the inductor from environmental conditions which might degrade its physical/conductive properties. However, PENG (embodiment of fig. 2b) teaches wherein the 3D-printed conductive material (230) of the inductor is fully embedded within said bulk (224) and not exposed at external surfaces of said bulk, so as to isolate the inductor from environmental conditions which might degrade its physical/conductive properties (as shown in fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the 3D-printed conductive material of the inductor fully embedded within said bulk and not exposed at external surfaces of said bulk, so as to isolate the inductor from environmental conditions which might degrade its physical/conductive properties as taught by PEGN (embodiment fig. 2b) with the invention of PENG (embodiment fig. 1a-1b) in order to avoid corrosion and damage.
Claims 10, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940) in view of Park et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0077585).
Regarding claim 10, PENG et al. teaches a method to fabricate one or more electric components (100) comprising one or more electric coils (as shown in fig. 3a-3f); wherein at least one electric coil of said one or more electric coils has an open magnetic circuit configuration (as shown in fig. 1a-1b); the method comprising: providing a model (as shown in fig. 1a-1b) of the one or more electric components wherein the model is indicative of three-dimensional spatial distribution of at least three materials in the at least one electric coil having the open magnetic circuit configuration (as shown in fig. 1a-1b and disclosed in para. 0013-0018), including: 3D-distribution of magnetic material (120), 3D-distribution of conductive material (133 and 135), and 3D-distribution of non-magnetic dielectric material (122 and 124); wherein the three-dimensional spatial distribution of the at least three materials is indicative of: spatial distribution of a bulk (122 and 124) of the at least one electric coil formed by non-magnetic dielectric material (as disclosed in para. 0018); spatial distribution of magnetic material (120) (as disclosed in para. 0017), defining at least one magnetic channel (120) in said bulk associated with a magnetic core of the at least one electric coil (as shown in fig. 1b and disclosed in para. 0017); spatial distribution of conductive material (133 and 135) defining at least one electric channel in said bulk (122 and 124) associated with an inductor of said at least one electric coil and having a coiled/helical geometry with a plurality of electrically connected conductive windings arranged to circumference said magnetic channel (as shown in fig. 1a-1b); wherein the spatial distribution of the magnetic material (120) has said open magnetic circuit configuration and is indicative of magnetic material occupying a central region of the coil/helical geometry of said inductor while not enclosing the conductive windings (133 and 135) of said inductor with a closed loop of said magnetic material (as shown in fig. 1a-1b), applying 3D printing (as shown in fig. 3a-3f) to print said one or more electric components (100) thereby obtaining said at least one electric coil with the open magnetic circuit configuration.
PENG fails to specifically teach facilitating efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core to yield high induced voltage in response to the external magnetic field. However, Park et al. teaches facilitating efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core (40) to yield high induced voltage in response to the external magnetic field (as disclosed in para. 0028).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have facilitating efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core to yield high induced voltage in response to the external magnetic field as taught by Park et al. with the invention of PENG in order to sense an external magnetic field by connecting the voltage to an external electric circuit (Park et al. para. 0028).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of PENG and Park et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10.
PENG (embodiment of fig. 1a-1b) fails to specifically teach wherein boundaries of said bulk are printed with one or more materials other than said conductive material such that said inductor is fully embedded within a bulk of its respective electronic component and not exposed at external surfaces of said bulks except from terminal end electric contacts thereof. However, PENG (embodiment of fig. 2b) teaches wherein boundaries of said bulk (224) are printed with one or more materials other than said conductive material such that said inductor is fully embedded within a bulk of its respective electronic component and not exposed at external surfaces of said bulks except from terminal end electric contacts thereof (as shown in fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have boundaries of said bulk printed with one or more materials other than said conductive material such that said inductor is fully embedded within a bulk of its respective electronic component and not exposed at external surfaces of said bulks except from terminal end electric contacts thereof as taught by PEGN (embodiment fig. 2b) with the invention of the combination of PENG (embodiment fig. 1a-1b) and Park et al. in order to avoid corrosion and damage.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of PENG and Park et al. teaches the limitations of claim 14, in addition, PENG teaches wherein at least one of the following: said one or more materials printed in the boundaries of said bulk (224) comprise said non-magnetic dielectric material (as disclosed in para. 0024); and said one or more materials printed in the boundaries of said bulk comprise said non- magnetic dielectric material, and said magnetic material and wherein said non- magnetic dielectric material is interposed between separate regions of said magnetic material at said boundaries so as to prevent formation of a closed loop magnetic channel enclosing the conductive windings of the inductor.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of PENG and Park et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10, in addition, PENG teaches wherein at least one of the following: said conductive material comprises Silver, and the method comprises sintering said one or more 3D structures at temperatures below 961°C; said conductive material comprises Copper, and the method comprises sintering said one or more 3D structures in Oxygen deprived environment (such as Nitrogen rich environment) at temperatures below 1084°C; said conductive material comprises Silver-Palladium alloy, and the method comprises sintering said one or more 3D structures at temperatures below a melting point of the Silver-Palladium alloy; said magnetic material comprises Ceramic-Ferrite material; said magnetic material comprises Metal material (nickel iron, as disclosed in para. 0017); said magnetic material has a relative permeability µr in the order of 100 or more; said non-magnetic dielectric material comprises Ceramic or Glass-Ceramic material and wherein the method comprises sintering said one or more 3D structures at temperature sufficient for firing said Ceramic or Glass-Ceramic material.
Regarding claim 19, PENG et al. teaches a magnetic sensor (100) comprising one or more electric coils, the magnetic sensor is formed by 3D printing of at least three different 3D-printed materials (as shown in fig. 3a-3f), and comprises: a bulk (122 and 124) formed by non-magnetic dielectric 3D printed material (as disclosed in para. 0018); and at least one electric coil in said bulk (as shown in fig. 1b), whereby the at least one electric coil comprises: at least one magnetic channel (120) comprising 3D-printed magnetic material embedded in said bulk (as shown in fig. 1b and disclosed in para. 0017); and at least one electric channel ((133 and 135) comprising 3D-printed conductive material embedded in said bulk and extending therethrough between two terminal ends of the electric channel of said electric coil (as shown in fig. 1a-1b), which are exposed at a surface of the bulk to serve as electric contacts of said electric coil (as shown in fig. 1b); wherein at least one of said electric channel (133 and 135) and magnetic channel (120) is 3D printed in said bulk with coiled geometry forming a plurality of windings about the other one of said electric channel and magnetic channel (as shown in fig. 1a and 3a-3f), thereby providing that said at least one electric channel is configured and operable as an inductor of said at least one electric coil and said at least one magnetic channel is configured and operable as a magnetic core of the inductor of the at least one electric coil (as shown in fig. 1a-1b); wherein the magnetic channel (120) forming the magnetic core is configured with an open magnetic circuit configuration such that it does not enclose said conductive channel with a closed loop of said magnetic material (as shown in fig. 1b).
PENG fails to specifically teach facilitates efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core and enables high induced voltage in said at least one electric coil in response to the external magnetic field. However, Park et al. teaches facilitates efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core (40) and enables high induced voltage in said at least one electric coil (20) in response to the external magnetic field (as disclosed in para. 0028).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have facilitates efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core and enables high induced voltage in said at least one electric coil in response to the external magnetic field as taught by Park et al. with the invention of PENG in order to sense an external magnetic field by connecting the voltage to an external electric circuit (Park et al. para. 0028).
Regarding claim 20, PENG teaches a method to fabricate one or more magnetic sensors (100) comprising one or more electric coils; wherein at least one electric coil of said one or more electric coils has an open magnetic circuit configuration (as shown in fig. 1a-1b); the method comprising: providing a model (as shown in fig. 1a-1b) of the one or more magnetic sensors (100) wherein the model is indicative of three-dimensional spatial distribution of at least three materials in the at least one electric coil with the open magnetic circuit configuration, including: 3D-distribution of magnetic material (120), 3D-distribution of conductive material (133 and 135), and 3D-distribution of non-magnetic dielectric material (122 and 124); wherein the three-dimensional spatial distribution of the at least three materials is indicative of: spatial distribution of a bulk (122 and 124) of the at least one electric coil formed by non-magnetic dielectric material (as disclosed in para. 0018); spatial distribution of the magnetic material (as disclosed in para. 0017), defining at least one magnetic channel (120) in said bulk (122 and 124) associated with a magnetic core of the at least one electric coil (as shown in fig. 1b); spatial distribution of the conductive material defining at least one electric channel (133 and 135) in said bulk (122 and 124) associated with an inductor of said at least one electric coil (as shown in fig. 1a-1b and disclosed in para. 0017); wherein at least one of the spatial distribution of magnetic material defining said magnetic channel (120) of the at least one electric coil, and the spatial distribution of conductive material defining said electric channel (133 and 135) of the at least one electric coil has coiled geometry forming a plurality of windings about the other one of said electric channel and magnetic channel (as shown in fig. 1a-1b), thereby providing that said at least one electric channel (133 and 135) is configured and operable as an inductor of said at least one electric coil and said at least one magnetic channel (120) is configured and operable as a magnetic core of the inductor of the at least one electric coil (as disclosed in para. 0017); wherein the spatial distribution of the magnetic material defining said magnetic channel (120) has said open magnetic circuit configuration and does not enclose said conductive channel with a closed loop of said magnetic material (as shown in fig. 1b); and applying 3D printing (as shown in fig. 3a-3f) to print said one or more magnetic sensors (100) thereby obtaining said at least one electric coil (133 and 135) with the open magnetic circuit configuration.
PENG fails to specifically teach facilitating efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core to yield high induced voltage in response to the external magnetic field. However, Park et al. teaches facilitating efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core (40) to yield high induced voltage in response to the external magnetic field (as disclosed in para. 0028).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have facilitating efficient coupling of flux passage from an external magnetic field through the magnetic core to yield high induced voltage in response to the external magnetic field as taught by Park et al. with the invention of PENG in order to sense an external magnetic field by connecting the voltage to an external electric circuit (Park et al. para. 0028).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940) and Park et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0077585) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of HANCOCK (WO 2020/141165 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of PENG and Park et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of PENG and Park et al. fails to specifically teach wherein said 3D printing is carried out with successive printing of layers of thicknesses in the order of 5 to 15 µm along a printing direction (z) and such that a pitch of the conductive windings along said printing direction (z) is in the order twice said layer thicknesses of about 10 µm to 30 µm thereby yielding printing of miniature electric coils having high winding density. However, HANCOCK teaches wherein said 3D printing is carried out with successive printing of layers of thicknesses in the order of 5 to 15 µm along a printing direction (z) and such that a pitch of the conductive windings along said printing direction (z) is in the order twice said layer thicknesses of about 10 µm to 30 µm thereby yielding printing of miniature electric coils having high winding density (as disclosed in para. 0133).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have said 3D printing carried out with successive printing of layers of thicknesses in the order of 5 to 15 µm along a printing direction (z) and such that a pitch of the conductive windings along said printing direction (z) is in the order twice said layer thicknesses of about 10 µm to 30 µm thereby yielding printing of miniature electric coils having high winding density as taught by HANCOCK with the invention of the combination of PENG and Park et al. in order to fabricate a compact and efficient electric component.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940) and Park et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0077585) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of KUSUDA (PGPUB 2020/0234860).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of PENG and Park et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of PENG and Park et al. fails to specifically teach suitable for mass-production of electronic components and wherein said model is indicative of material distribution in an arrangement of a plurality of said electric components to be simultaneously 3D printed. However, KUSUDA teaches suitable for mass-production of electronic components and wherein said model is indicative of material distribution in an arrangement of a plurality of said electric components to be simultaneously 3D printed (as disclosed in para. 0094).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have suitable for mass-production of electronic components and wherein said model is indicative of material distribution in an arrangement of a plurality of said electric components to be simultaneously 3D printed as taught by KUSUDA with the invention of the combination of PENG and Park et al. in order to improve and enhance throughput.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940) and Park et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0077585) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wicker et al. (PGPUB 2014/0268604).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of PENG and Park et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of PENG and Park et al. fails to specifically teach wherein said 3D printing is carried out utilizing vat photopolymerization 3D printing process. However, Wicker et al. teaches wherein said 3D printing is carried out utilizing vat photopolymerization 3D printing process (as disclosed in claim 17).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have said 3D printing carried out utilizing vat photopolymerization 3D printing process as taught by Wicker et al. with the invention of the combination of PENG and Park et al. in order to use a high precision and resolution process.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG (US PGPUB 2018/0286940) and Park et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0077585) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Susel et al. (Pat. 7,816,915).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of PENG and Park et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of PENG and Park et al. fails to specifically teach furnishing contact elements connected to the electric channel defining the inductor of said at least one electric coil, at terminal regions at which the conductive material of said electric channel is exposed from said bulk, to thereby enable mounting said at least one electric coil to a circuit board. However, Susel et al. teaches furnishing contact elements (70) connected to the electric channel defining the inductor of said at least one electric coil (as shown in fig. 3A-3B), at terminal regions at which the conductive material of said electric channel is exposed from said bulk, to thereby enable mounting said at least one electric coil to a circuit board (as disclosed in col. 5, line 37 through col. 6, line 14).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have furnishing contact elements connected to the electric channel defining the inductor of said at least one electric coil, at terminal regions at which the conductive material of said electric channel is exposed from said bulk, to thereby enable mounting said at least one electric coil to a circuit board as taught by Susel et al. with the invention of the combination of PENG and Park et al. in order to connect the coil and core to external devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to specifically teach a method wherein said applying of the 3D printing comprises (a) providing curable resins corresponding respectively to said at least three materials, whereby said curable resins comprise: magnetic material resin comprising particles of magnetic material suspended in curable polymer binder; conductive material resin comprising particles of conductive material suspended in curable polymer binder; non-magnetic dielectric material resin comprising particles of non-magnetic dielectric material suspended in curable polymer binder; and (b) 3D printing said curable resins layer by layer according to said three-dimensional spatial distribution of the model to obtain one or more 3D structures with said one or more electric components, wherein 3D printing each layer comprises: printing and curing said magnetic material at regions of said layer corresponding to one or more magnetic cores of said one or more electric coils; printing and curing said conductive material at regions of said layer corresponding to one or more inductors of said one or more electric coils; and printing and curing said of non-magnetic dielectric material at least near interfaces of said conductive material of the one or more inductors not interfacing said one or more magnetic cores; and wherein said 3D printing carried out such that the magnetic core of said at least one coil of the open magnetic circuit configuration occupies the central region of the coil/helical geometry of said inductor while not enclosing the conductive windings of said inductor with a continuous closed loop channel of said magnetic material; and (c) sintering said one or more 3D structures at temperature sufficient for burning or driving off polymers therefrom and thereby achieving ceramic or metal density approaching 100% in said electric components, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights