The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 2, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Pages 3 & 4, in the brief description of the drawings, note that reference labels appearing in such description (e.g. 100, 10, 20, 30, …) are deemed inappropriate and thus should be deleted at all instances therein. Page 5, lines 3, 11, note that the labeling “E1 to E4” (i.e. line 3) and “121 to 125” (i.e. line 11) should be rewritten as --E1, E2, E3 and E4-- and --121, 122, 123, 124 and 125--, respectively for consistency with the labeling in the corresponding drawings; line 5, note that --as shown in FIGS. 2, 4, 6, respectively and-- should be inserted prior to “which” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in those drawings; line 25, note that the term “whose” should be rewritten as --having-- for idiomatic clarity. Page 6, line 3, note that --through-- should be inserted after “passing” for idiomatic clarity; lines 8 & 9, note that the recitation of “belong to” should be rewritten as --located-- for an appropriate characterization; line 16, note that the term “coin” should be rewritten as --coil-- to indicate the appropriate term. Page 7, lines 10, 12, note that --(FIG. 1)-- should be inserted after “2” (i.e. line 10) and --(FIG. 4)-- should be inserted after “210” (i.e. line 12), respectively at these instances for consistency with the labeling in those drawings. Page 6, line 14 and page 16, lines 21, 24, note that the pronoun “This” should be rewritten to indicate the corresponding intended feature, respectively at these instances for clarity and completeness of description. Page 7, lines 17, 20 and page 11, line 2, note that the recitation of “to the area A2 side” should be rewritten as --the side of area A2--, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 7, line 24 to page 8, line 2, note that the nature of parameters (Sa, Sb) are vague in meaning, especially since such parameters do not appear in any of the drawings and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 8, line 21, note that the labeling “11 to 15” should be rewritten as --11, 12, 13, 14, 15-- for consistency with the labeling in the corresponding drawing. Page 9, line 4, note that the labeling “221 to 122” should be rewritten as --221, 222, 223, 224, 225 and 226-- for consistency with the labeling in the corresponding drawing. Page 11, line 3, note that the recitation of “than the section 211 is” should be rewritten as --than to the section 211-- for an appropriate characterization; lines 15, 22, note that the labeling “21 to 27” (i.e. line 15) and “321 to 326” (i.e. line 22) should be rewritten as --21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27-- and --321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326--, respectively for consistency with the labeling in the corresponding drawings. Page 12, line 7, it is noted that the labeling “31 to 34” should be rewritten as --31, 32, 33, and 34-- for consistency with the labeling in the corresponding drawing. Page 14, lines 3, 5, note that --, respectively-- should be inserted after “300A” (i.e. line 3) and after “30A” (i.e. line 5), respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations; line 8, note that the pronoun “it” should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature for clarity and completeness of description; line 18, note that the recitation of “thus configured” should be deleted as being unnecessary; line 21, note that the recitation of “with its longer side and shorter side directions being” should be rewritten as --with longer and shorter sides thereof being-- for an appropriate characterization. Note that label (A), appearing in FIG. 4, needs to be correspondingly described in the specification description of FIG. 4 for clarity and completeness of description. Throughout the detail description, for the description of individual drawings, it is noted that at numerous instances therein, certain reference labels do not actually appear in the drawing being described and thus such reference labels need to be reference with respect to drawing(s) in which such labels actually appear for clarity and completeness of description. Some, but not all, instances include: page 11, lines 15, 16, 23-25, refer to labels (300, 221 to 226, 21 to 26, 20), which do not appear in FIG. 5, being described herein; page 13, lines 18, 19, refer to labels (3a, 3b), which do not appear in FIGS. 7, 8, being described herein; etc. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4; 5, 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 7, 10, 12, note that the recitation of “the inner diameter area” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear with respect to which one of the “inner diameter areas” (i.e. line 5) would be intended by the respective recitations and thus appropriate clarification is needed; lines 21-23, 25-27, note that the respective recitation of “the circumferential position” lacks strict antecedent basis, at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 5, lines 14 & 15, note that the recitation of “are shacked to each other” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 1, lines 20, 22, 24, 26, note that --of the first coil pattern including-- should be inserted after “section”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization.
In claim 5, line 24, note that --the-- should be inserted prior to “other” for an appropriate characterization.
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 of this title, 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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of the Nishikawa et al (‘340) reference (cited by applicants’).
Kim (i.e. FIG. 6) discloses a common mode filter, comprising: a first conductor coil pattern (i.e. 320) including a first inner peripheral end (i.e. at the left side of the coil) and a first outer peripheral end (i.e. at the right side of the coil); a second conductor coil pattern (i.e. 420) including a second inner peripheral end (i.e. at the left side of the coil) and a second outer peripheral end (i.e. at the right side of the coil), and which is stacked with respect to the first conductor coil pattern (320); a first terminal electrode (i.e. terminal portion 312) connected to the first outer peripheral end; a second terminal electrode (i.e. terminal portion 412) connected to the second outer peripheral end; a third terminal electrode (i.e. terminal portion 212) connected to the first inner peripheral end through a connection pattern (i.e. lead pattern 210); a fourth terminal electrode (i.e. terminal portion 512) connected to the second inner peripheral end; a magnetic body (i.e. magnetic cores (230, 330, 430, 530) in FIG. 6) configured to vertically extend through the common mode filter at first and second overlapping inner diameter areas associated with the first and second conductor coil patterns, where the first and second inner diameters can be arbitrarily separated into first and second areas on opposite sides of a virtual line, such that the first and second inner peripheral ends are disposed in the first part (i.e. left side) as evident from FIG. 6. Moreover, as evident from FIG. 6, the magnetic body (230, 330, 430, 530) includes a part (i.e. left side) that is disposed in the first area, while a remaining part of the magnetic body is disposed in the second area (i.e. right side). However, the Kim does not disclose that the remaining part of the magnetic body is greater than the part of the magnetic body.
Nishikawa et al (i.e. Fig. 4) discloses first and second coils (i.e. 21, 41) that are stacked with respect to each other, where each coil includes a respective inner diameter area (i.e. not labeled, but is evident from Fig. 4), where a magnetic body (i.e. magnetic regions (13a-18a) in Fig. 4) is vertically disposed through the inner diameter area. As evident from Fig. 4, perpendicular intersecting lines (L3, L4) define the center of the coils, as well as the center on the magnetic body. As is evident from Fig. 4, the majority of the magnetic body (13a-18a) is located above line (L4), while a minority of the magnetic body (13a-18a) is located below line (L4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified the shape of the magnetic body in Kim to have taken a magnetic body shape, as taught by Nishikawa et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent magnetic bodies, especially since the generic nature of the magnetic body in Kim would have suggested that any art recognized equivalent magnetic body, such as the magnetic body taught by Nishikawa et al, would have been usable, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Note that as an obvious consequence of such a modification, the resultant combination would have necessarily provided for a magnetic body, where the magnetic body in a particular area (i.e. remaining part of the magnetic body in the second area) has greater coverage than the magnetic body in a different area (i.e. the part of the magnetic body in the first area).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawashima et al, Oomori et al and Yokoyama et al all pertain to common mode filters having coil patterns with an inner diameter where a magnetic body is disposed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights