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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 § 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.
Claim 3 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 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira (JP2011181869 – IDS) in view of Kazuhiko et al. (JPH11144983A – IDS).
Claims 1 and 8; Taira disclose a saturable-core inductor (Fig. 1, 2: choke coil 13, 21), comprising an inductor wire configured to carry a high-frequency AC current (Fig. 1, 2: winding 18), a magnetic core structure comprising a non- saturable part and a saturable part, (e.g. a composite core) wherein the non-saturable part of the magnetic core structure comprises at least one core body arranged to form a closed magnetic circuit with at least one air gap, (Fig. 1, 2: C-core 17 has a gap) wherein the saturable part of the magnetic core structure comprises a core bridge element inserted into each of the at least one air gap to form a magnetic bridge across the air gap for the closed magnetic circuit, (Fig. 1, 2: low saturation magnetic flux portion 20, 22) wherein each bridge element and the at least one core body are configured to be unsaturated at predetermined low current levels to provide a low-current high inductance, and wherein each bridge element is configured to saturates fully with increasing current levels and to thereby quickly drop the inductance from the low-current high inductance to a low inductance, while the remaining portions of the at least one air gap are configured to prevent the at least one core body from a full saturation (see Par. 18-23; Fig. 3).
However, Taira does not clearly disclose whether each bridge element is configured to saturates fully first with increasing current levels.
Kazuhiko et al. teaches the portion 20 has the same cross-sectional area as the magnetic path, but when the winding current is increased, the portion 20 magnetically saturates first, causing the magnetic resistance of the magnetic path to increase. As a result, an inductance value in a low current region is increased compared with that in a large current region, and hence the shape, weight and cost can be suppressed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Taira to include each bridge element being configured to saturates fully first with increasing current levels in order to provide an inductance value in a low current region is increased compared with that in a large current region, and hence the shape, weight and cost can be suppressed as taught by Kazuhiko et al.
Claim 4: Taira discloses, see Par. 25: "the cross-sectional area of the
low saturation magnetic flux part is the same as the cross-sectional area of the iron
core, but it does not have to be particularly the same, and the cross-sectional area of
the low saturation magnetic flux part is smaller". The structural features are identical,
so they have the same effect and the inductor has the same saturation pattern.
Claim 7; Taira disclose a core bridge element extending only partly
within the air gap in the magnetic circuit direction.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsugunori ((JP2002373811 – IDS) in view of Kazuhiko et al.
Claims 1 and 8; Tsugunori discloses a saturable-core inductor (Fig. 1: toroidal coil 1), comprising an inductor wire configured to carry a high-frequency AC current (Fig. 1: winding 3), a magnetic core structure comprising a non-saturable part and a saturable part, (e.g. a composite core) wherein the non-saturable part of the magnetic core structure comprises at least one core body arranged to form a closed magnetic circuit with at least one air gap, (Fig. 1, 2: core 2 has a gap 7) wherein the saturable part of the magnetic core structure comprises a core bridge element inserted into each of the at least one air gap to form a magnetic bridge across the air gap for the closed magnetic circuit, (Fig. 1, 2: ferrite sheet 5) wherein each bridge element and the at least one core body are configured to be unsaturated at predetermined low current levels to provide a low-current high inductance, and wherein each bridge element is configured to saturate fully first with increasing current levels and to thereby quickly drop the inductance from the low-current high inductance to a low inductance, while the remaining portions of the at least one air gap are configured to prevent the at least one core body from a full saturation (see Par. 25-27: the permeability of the ferrite sheet 5 is lower than the one of the core, thereby resulting in the claimed saturation pattern).
However, Tsugunori does not clearly disclose whether each bridge element is configured to saturates fully first with increasing current levels.
Kazuhiko et al. teaches the portion 20 has the same cross-sectional area as the magnetic path, but when the winding current is increased, the portion 20 magnetically saturates first, causing the magnetic resistance of the magnetic path to increase. As a result, an inductance value in a low current region is increased compared with that in a large current region, and hence the shape, weight and cost can be suppressed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Tsugunori to include each bridge element being configured to saturates fully first with increasing current levels in order to provide an inductance value in a low current region is increased compared with that in a large current region, and hence the shape, weight and cost can be suppressed as taught by Kazuhiko et al.
Claim 2; see figure 1.
Claim 3: Tsugunori disclose a toroid core, with two halves.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 6194684 – IDS) in view of Kazuhiko et al.
Claims 1 and 8; Clark et al. disclose a saturable-core inductor (Fig. 4: choke 200), comprising an inductor wire configured to carry a high-frequency AC current (Fig. 4: winding 220), a magnetic core structure comprising a non-saturable part and a saturable part, (e.g. a composite core) wherein the non-saturable part of the magnetic core structure comprises at least one core body arranged to form a closed magnetic circuit with at least one air gap, (Fig. 4: C-core 202 has a gap) wherein the saturable part of the magnetic core structure comprises a core bridge element inserted into each of the at least one air gap to form a magnetic bridge across the air ap for the closed magnetic circuit, (Fig. 4: pole piece 216) wherein each bridge element and the at least one core body are configured to be unsaturated at redetermined low current levels to provide a low-current high inductance, and wherein each bridge element is configured to saturate fully first with increasing current levels and to thereby quickly drop the inductance from the low-current high inductance to a low inductance, while the remaining portions of the at least one air gap are configured to prevent the at least one core body from a full saturation (see column 5, lines 35-45).
However, Clark et al. does not clearly disclose whether each bridge element is configured to saturates fully first with increasing current levels.
Kazuhiko et al. teaches the portion 20 has the same cross-sectional area as the magnetic path, but when the winding current is increased, the portion 20 magnetically saturates first, causing the magnetic resistance of the magnetic path to increase. As a result, an inductance value in a low current region is increased compared with that in a large current region, and hence the shape, weight and cost can be suppressed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Clark et al. to include each bridge element being configured to saturates fully first with increasing current levels in order to provide an inductance value in a low current region is increased compared with that in a large current region, and hence the shape, weight and cost can be suppressed as taught by Kazuhiko et al.
Claims 5-6: see Fig. 4: the pole piece 216 is placed at the inner periphery of the core.
Claim 7: Clark et al. disclose a core bridge element extending only partly within the air gap in the magnetic circuit direction.
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira, Tsugunori and Clark et al. in view of Kazuhiko et al., and further in view of De Doncker et al. (US 5047913 – IDS).
Claims 9, 10 and 13; Taira and Kazuhiko et al., Tsugunori and Kazuhiko et al., Clark et al. and Kazuhiko et al., all disclose the saturable-core inductor as claimed except for the high frequency being a switching frequency in a converter and an ARCP converter comprising: an auxiliary circuit branch connected between a neutral point and an output node in an ARCP converter, the auxiliary circuit branch comprising a series connection of at least one bidirectional auxiliary switch; and, a semiconductor switch.
De Doncker et al. teach a an ARCP converter comprising: an auxiliary circuit branch connected between a neutral point and an output node in an ARCP converter, the auxiliary circuit branch comprising a series connection of at least one bidirectional auxiliary switch, figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Taira and Kazuhiko et al., Tsugunori and Kazuhiko et al., Clark et al. and Kazuhiko et al. to include an auxiliary circuit branch connected between a neutral point and an output node in an ARCP converter, the auxiliary circuit branch comprising a series connection of at least one bidirectional auxiliary switch and operating at a high switching frequency in order to apply the benefits of the saturable reactor to a converter circuit in order to increase the circuit efficiency.
Claims 11 and 12; De Doncker et al. teach a bidirectional switch 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 571-270-1682. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 9/01/026
Prosecution Insights