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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s papers filed on 06/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract contains two paragraphs while the abstract is limited to a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
Note that as best understood, the disclosure, specifically Figs. 6B, 7C and 10 and paragraphs [110-112] of the corresponding US 2025/0385030 A1, discloses the tapered portion of the ferrite core [121] disposed at one end the ferrite core [121] closer to the tapered portion [101t] of the housing [101] and the tip of the core [102] and comprising the curved portion [121c] including two flat portions [121d] and two curved surfaces that are curved from the bottom end of the non-tapered portion of the ferrite core [121] to the bottom end of the tapered portion of the ferrite core [121] closer to the tip of the core [102]. Since the limitation in last 3 lines of claim 3 includes features, which are not labeled and not discussed in detail in the specification, the below drawing objection is made as failing to showing the claimed subject matter.
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 features, “at least two curved surfaces,” “one side surface of one end of the ferrite core,” and “a portion adjacent to the through-hole of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole,” of the limitation, “the curved portion comprises at least two curved surfaces that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole” in last 3 lines of claims 3 and 8, 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “the ferrite core comprising 60 to 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 to 30 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 3 to 20 wt% of zinc (Zn).” The original disclosure does not explicitly disclose the ferrite core comprising only (or consisting of) iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) or the ferrite core comprising iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), and other element(s). The above underlined limitation is construed to include at least features, (i) “the ferrite core comprising 60 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 3 wt% of zinc (Zn),” i.e., 78 wt% of a combination of iron, manganese, and zinc, (ii) “the ferrite core comprising 60 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 20 wt% of zinc (Zn),” i.e., 95% of a combination of iron, manganese, and zinc, (iii) “the ferrite core comprising 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 20 wt% of zinc (Zn),” i.e., 115 wt% of a combination of iron, manganese, and zinc, (iv) “the ferrite core comprising 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 20 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 20 wt% of zinc (Zn),” i.e., 120 wt% of a combination of iron, manganese, and zinc, and (v) “the ferrite core comprising 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 30 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 20 wt% of zinc (Zn),” i.e., 130 wt% of a combination of iron, manganese, and zinc. Since the specification and the claim do not explicitly define the ferrite core comprising 60 to 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 to 30 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 3 to 20 wt% of zinc (Zn), with respect to a 130, 120, 115, 78, 95 or other number wt% of a combination of only iron, manganese, and zinc or a combination of iron, manganese, zinc, and other element(s), as discussed above, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined. Note that the above-discussed numbers are mere examples while other numbers of other combinations are also included in the above underlined limitation.
In addition to claim 1, since this claim is directed to a stand-alone ferrite core, but recites a limitation, “A ferrite core mounted in a stylus pen” in line 1, that requires a stylus pen, it is unclear whether this claim is directed to a stand-alone ferrite core or a stylus pen comprising a ferrite core, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
As per claims 2-6, these claims are rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claims 3-6, since these claims recite a limitation, “the ferrite core has a first cross-sectional shape in a first vertical direction” in line 3 of claim 3, which is indefinite as the first vertical direction has not been defined in a plane along with another direction to define a cross section, it is considered that these claims are not clearly defined.
In addition to claims 3-6, since these claims recite a limitation, “the ferrite core has a second cross-sectional shape in a second vertical direction” in lines 3-4 of claim 3, which is indefinite as the second vertical direction has not been defined in a plane along with another direction to define a cross section, it is considered that these claims are not clearly defined.
In addition to claims 3-6, since it is unclear “a portion” in line 9 of claim 3 is of which element, e.g., the stylus pen, the ferrite core, the curved portion, or other, it is considered that these claims are not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 5, this claim recites a limitation, “the curved portion is gradually changed from an aspherical shape to a spherical shape in a direction from the other end to the one end of the ferrite core.” Since Fig. 31 does not show anything that appears to be a spherical or aspherical and it is unclear what this would entail the above underlined limitation, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined. Further, since it is unclear whether “the other end” of the above underlined limitation is referred to “the other end of the curved portion,” “the other end of the ferrite core”,” or other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
As per claim 7, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations. In addition, claim 7 further recites the limitations, “the other end of the ferrite core” in line 8 and “the other end of the core body” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
As per claims 8-20, these claims are rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 or 7 above.
In addition to claims 8-10, see the rejection of claim 3 for similar limitations recited in claim 8.
In addition to claim 10, this claim further recites a limitation, “a protection member disposed between the core body and the movable bracket to press the core body.” Since the core body cannot be pressed between the core body and the moving bracket (see Fig. 16,) it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claims 11-17, these claims further recite the limitation, “the other end of the fixing bracket” in line 2 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
In addition to claims 13-15, these claims further recite the limitation, “the other end of the elastic body” in line 7 of claim 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
In addition to claim 17, this claim further recites the limitation, “wherein a capacitance of the capacitor unit is changed more dominantly relative to an inductance of the inductor unit at a time when a hover state and a contact state of the stylus pen are distinguished.” Since it is not clear what “a time when a hover state and a contact state of the stylus pen are distinguished” particularly means because the pen is either hovering or contacting a surface and thus this relationship should be distinguished at all times, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 18, this claim further recites the limitations, “the first vertical direction” in line 1, “the first cross-sectional shape” in lines 1-2, “the second vertical direction” in lines 2-3, “the second cross-sectional shape” in line 3, and “the curved portion” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In addition to claim 19, see the rejection of claim 5 for similar limitation. In addition, this claim further recites the limitation, “the curved portion” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, this claim further recites the limitation, “the other end” in line 2. Since it is unclear whether this limitation is referred to “the other end of the cover body” in lines 9-10 of claim 7, “the other end of the ferrite core” in line 8 of claim 7, or other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 3-6, 8-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Further, note that since the term, “at least one,” can be broadly construed to include “two, three, or more,” when drafting or amending claims, the Applicant should carefully consider the plain and ordinary meaning of “at least one.”
As per claim 3, this claim recites a limitation, “the curved portion comprises at least two curved surfaces that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole” in last 3 lines 13-17. This underlined limitation includes at least a feature, “the curved portion comprises three, fourth, or more curved surfaces that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole,” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 31, discloses the curved portion [1210c] comprising two curved surfaces curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core [1210] to a portion adjacent to the through-hole [1210h] of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole. However, the original disclosure including the original claim 3, does not explicitly discuss in detail regarding to the above feature of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Also, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 4-6, these claims are rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 3 above.
In addition to claim 4, this claim recites a limitation, “at least a portion of the curved portion is shown only in the second cross-sectional shape” in last line. 3 lines 13-17, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically at least Figs. 9, 10, 13 and 31, discloses the curved portion [1210c] also shown in various directions and various shapes of the ferrite core. Also, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 8, see the rejection of claim 3 for similar limitations.
As per claims 9-10, these claims are rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 8 above.
As per claim 18, see the rejection of claim 4 for similar limitations.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (EP 2767648 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Ochiai (US 11,794,511 B2.)
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a ferrite core comprising 60 to 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 to 30 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 3 to 20 wt% of zinc (Zn) (see at least TABLE 2; ¶¶ 52-54, disclosing various ferrite/magnetic cores based on the aspect of permeability and/or loss, e.g., the ferrite core in the Sample 3 comprising 71.38 wt% of iron (Fe) in the range of 60 to 80 wt% of iron, 20.06 wt% of manganese (Mn) in the range of 15 to 30 wt% of manganese, and 8.56 wt% of zinc (Zn) in the range of 3 to 20 wt% of zinc.)
Accordingly, Lee discloses all limitations of this claim except that Lee is silent to discloses the ferrite core mounted in a stylus pen.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ochiai discloses a ferrite/inductor core [1] mounted in a stylus pen [50] (see at least Fig. 4,) wherein components used in the ferrite/inductor core include iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) (see at least Col. 7:46-53 and Col. 8:31-35.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize/ mount the ferrite core of the Lee reference in the stylus pen, in view of the teaching in the Ochiai reference, in according to the application of the stylus pen.
As per claim 2, the combination of Lee and Ochiai obviously renders the ferrite core manufactured at a firing temperature of 800°C to 1800°C (see Ochiai at least Col. 12:1-25, disclosing the ferrite core manufactured at a firing temperature of 700°C to 1000°C including a range of 800°C to 1000°C being within the claimed range of 800°C to 1800°C.)
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. (US 2016/0162049 A1; hereinafter Horie) in view of Ochiai (US 11,794,511 B2) and Lee et al. (EP 2767648 A1; hereinafter Lee.)
As per claim 1, Horie discloses a ferrite core [6] mounted in a stylus pen [1] (see at least Fig. 1A,) but is silent to a ferrite core comprising 60 to 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 to 30 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 3 to 20 wt% of zinc (Zn.)
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ochiai discloses a ferrite/inductor core [1] mounted in a stylus pen [50] (see at least Fig. 4,) wherein components used in the ferrite/inductor core include iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) (see at least Col. 7:46-53 and Col. 8:31-35,) thereby increasing the magnetic permeability (see at least Col. 7:54 to Col. 8:2; Col. 8:41-43.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize the ferrite core including iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) in the stylus pen of the Horie reference, in view of the teaching in the Ochiai reference, to improve the above modified stylus pen of the Horie reference for the predictable result of increasing the magnetic permeability.
The above modified Horie in view of Ochiai still fails to disclose specific weights of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn), as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee, at least TABLE 2; ¶¶ 52-54 on page 5, specifically the ferrite core in the Sample 3, discloses a ferrite core, capable of increasing the magnetic permeability with minimum loss, comprising 71.38 wt% of iron (Fe) in the claimed range of 60 to 80 wt% of iron, 20.06 wt% of manganese (Mn) in the claimed range of 15 to 30 wt% of manganese, and 8.56 wt% of zinc (Zn) in the claimed range of 3 to 20 wt% of zinc. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize the ferrite core including the specific weights of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn), as claimed, in the above modified stylus pen of the Horie reference, in view of the teaching in the Lee reference, to improve the above modified stylus pen of the Horie reference for the predictable result of further increasing the magnetic permeability with minimum loss.
Accordingly, the above modified Horie in view of Ochiai and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 2, the combination of Horie in view of Ochiai and Lee obviously renders the ferrite core manufactured at a firing temperature of 800°C to 1800°C (see Ochiai at least Col. 12:1-25, disclosing the ferrite core manufactured at a firing temperature of 700°C to 1000°C including a range of 800°C to 1000°C being within the claimed range of 800°C to 1800°C.)
As per claim 3, Horie further discloses the ferrite core having a through-hole [[6a] formed along a longitudinal direction of the stylus pen (see at least Figs. 1A, 3A,) the ferrite core having a first cross-sectional shape in a first vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see at least Fig. 3B) and a second cross-section shape in a second vertical direction perpendicular to the first vertical direction (see at least Fig. 3C,) the first cross-sectional shape being different from the second cross-sectional shape (see Figs. 3B and 3C where they are different from one another,) the ferrite core comprising a curved portion disposed at one end of the ferrite core (see at least Figs. 3A, 3D, for tapered portion 65 which is curved,) and the curved portion comprises at least two curved surfaces that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole (see at least Figs. 3A, 3D, 3F, disclosing the curved portion [65] comprising two curved surfaces [63C, 64C] that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole [6a] of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole.)
As per claim 4, Horie further discloses wherein: a thickness of the ferrite core in the first vertical direction in the first cross-sectional shape is less than that of the ferrite core in the second vertical direction in the second cross-sectional shape and at least a portion of the curved portion is shown only in the second cross-sectional shape (see at least Figs. 3A-3F.)
As per claim 5, Horie further discloses wherein the curved portion is gradually changed from an aspherical shape to a spherical shape in a direction from the other end to the one end of the ferrite core (see at least Figs. 3A-3F.)
As per claim 6, Horie further discloses the ferrite core further comprising a flat portion [61, 62] disposed on one portion of the outer surface of the ferrite core and formed between both ends of the ferrite core along the longitudinal direction (see at least Figs. 3D, 3F,) wherein at one end of the ferrite core, the flat portion has a width that gradually decreases in a direction toward the one end of the ferrite core (see at least Figs. 3A-3F.)
As per claim 7, the above modified Horie in view of Ochiai and Lee, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, obviously renders a stylus pen [1] comprising a ferrite core [6] comprising 60 to 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 to 30 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 3 to 20 wt% of zinc (Zn) (see the rejection of claim 1.) Horie further discloses the stylus pen [1] comprising: a housing [2; Fig. 1A]; a core body [4; Fig. 1A] having one end disposed outside the housing and the rest disposed in the housing and moved along a longitudinal direction by external force applied to the one end (see at least Fig. 1; ¶ 63, “… movable in the axial direction …”;) an inductor unit [5, 6] comprising a ferrite core [6] disposed in the housing [2] and having a through-hole [6a] through which the core body [4] passes and a coil [5] wound around an outer surface of the ferrite core [6] (see; Figs. 1A, 3A; ¶ 46;) a fixing bracket fixed in the housing and coupled to the other end of the ferrite core (see at least Fig. 1 for anti-falling member 9 together with holder portion 3a;) and a moving bracket disposed in the fixing bracket, surrounding the other end of the core body, and connected with the core body to be synchronized with a movement of the core body (ses at least Fig. 1A; ¶ 93 for retaining member 73.)
As per claim 8, see the rejection of claim 3 for similar limitations.
As per claim 11, Horie further discloses the stylus pen comprising: a substrate bracket fixed in the housing and coupled to the other end of the fixing bracket; and a substrate on which a capacitor unit that forms a resonant circuit with the inductor unit and which is mounted to the substrate bracket (see at least Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 62-64, disclosing a printed board 8 mounted on a printed board mounting base portion 3b having capacitors 12 and 13 forming a resonance circuit with coil 5.)
As per claim 12, Horie further discloses the stylus pen further comprising: an elastic member disposed in the fixing bracket and mounted to the substrate bracket; and an elastic body disposed in the fixing bracket and disposed between the moving bracket and the elastic member, wherein the elastic body has an inner empty space, and at least a portion of the moving bracket and at least a portion of the elastic member are in contact with each other and disposed in the empty space of the elastic body (see at least Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 84-85, disclosing an elastic member 75 and conductive member 74 which is made of a conductive and elastically deformable elastic member.)
As per claim 16, Horie further discloses wherein a resonance frequency of the resonant circuit is changed according to a movement of the moving bracket synchronized with a movement of the core body (see at least Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 64-66 and ¶¶ 73-74, disclosing a printed board 8 having capacitors 12 and 13 forming a resonance circuit with coil 5, where the resonance frequency of the resonance circuit is adjusted by adjusting the capacitance of the trimmer capacitor 12. “The pen pressure detecting module in the present example uses a variable capacitance capacitor whose capacitance varies according to a pen pressure applied to the core body 4”.)
As per claim 17, Horie obviously discloses wherein a capacitance of the capacitor unit is changed more dominantly relative to an inductance of the inductor unit at a time when a hover state and a contact state of the stylus pen are distinguished (see at least Fig. 1A; ¶¶ 64-66 and ¶¶ 73-74, disclosing a printed board 8 having capacitors 12 and 13 forming a resonance circuit with coil 5, where the resonance frequency of the resonance circuit is adjusted by adjusting the capacitance of the trimmer capacitor 12. “The pen pressure detecting module in the present example uses a variable capacitance capacitor whose capacitance varies according to a pen pressure applied to the core body 4”. Thus the variable capacitance capacitor should be able to be changed more dominantly relative to the inductance of the ferrite core / coil as a mere design choice based on the operating parameters expected in the device.)
As per claims 18-20, see the rejections of claims 4-6 for similar limitations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 6-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,554,341 B2, hereinafter Pat341, in view of Ochiai and Lee.
As per claims 1, 3, 6-17 and 20, all limitations of these claims are contained in the patent claims 1-13 of Pat341 except “the ferrite core comprising 60 to 80 wt% of iron (Fe), 15 to 30 wt% of manganese (Mn), and 3 to 20 wt% of zinc (Zn),” as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ochiai discloses a ferrite/inductor core [1] mounted in a stylus pen [50] (see at least Fig. 4,) wherein components used in the ferrite/inductor core include iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) (see at least Col. 7:46-53 and Col. 8:31-35,) thereby increasing the magnetic permeability (see at least Col. 7:54 to Col. 8:2; Col. 8:41-43.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize the ferrite core including iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn), in the stylus pen of the patent claims, in view of the teaching in the Ochiai reference, to improve the above modified stylus pen of the patent claims for the predictable result of increasing the magnetic permeability.
The above modified patent claims in view of Ochiai still fail to disclose specific weights of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn), as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee, at least TABLE 2; ¶¶ 52-54 on page 5, specifically the ferrite core in the Sample 3, discloses a ferrite core, capable of increasing the magnetic permeability with minimum loss, comprising 71.38 wt% of iron (Fe) in the claimed range of 60 to 80 wt% of iron, 20.06 wt% of manganese (Mn) in the claimed range of 15 to 30 wt% of manganese, and 8.56 wt% of zinc (Zn) in the claimed range of 3 to 20 wt% of zinc. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize the ferrite core including the specific weights of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn), as claimed, in the above modified stylus pen of the patent claims, in view of the teaching in the Lee reference, to improve the above modified stylus pen of the patent claims for the predictable result of further increasing the magnetic permeability with minimum loss. Accordingly, the above modified patent claims in view of Ochiai and Lee obviously renders all limitations of these claims.
As per claim 2, the above modified patent claims in view of Ochiai and Lee obviously renders the ferrite core manufactured at a firing temperature of 800°C to 1800°C (see Ochiai at least Col. 12:1-25, disclosing the ferrite core manufactured at a firing temperature of 700°C to 1000°C including a range of 800°C to 1000°C being within the claimed range of 800°C to 1800°C.)
Claims 4, 5, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the patent claims of Pat341 in view of Ochiai and Lee, as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Horie.
As per claims 4 and 18, the above modified patent claims in view of Ochiai and Lee is silent to “a thickness of the ferrite core in the first vertical direction in the first cross-sectional shape is less than that of the ferrite core in the second vertical direction in the second cross-sectional shape, and at least a portion of the curved portion is shown only in the second cross-sectional shape.” However, in the same field of endeavor, Horie remedies for the deficiencies of the above modified patent claims by explicitly disclosing the ferrite core having a first cross-sectional shape in a first vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see at least Fig. 3B) and a second cross-section shape in a second vertical direction perpendicular to the first vertical direction (see at least Fig. 3C,) the first cross-sectional shape being different from the second cross-sectional shape (see Figs. 3B and 3C where they are different from one another,) the ferrite core comprising a curved portion disposed at one end of the ferrite core (see at least Figs. 3A, 3D, for tapered portion 65 which is curved,) and the curved portion comprises at least two curved surfaces that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole (see at least Figs. 3A, 3D, 3F, disclosing the curved portion [65] comprising two curved surfaces [63C, 64C] that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole [6a] of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole,) wherein a thickness of the ferrite core in the first vertical direction in the first cross-sectional shape is less than that of the ferrite core in the second vertical direction in the second cross-sectional shape and at least a portion of the curved portion is shown only in the second cross-sectional shape (see at least Figs. 3A-3F.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize Horie remedying for the above-discussed deficiencies of the patent claims or to modify the stylus pen to include “a thickness of the ferrite core in the first vertical direction in the first cross-sectional shape is less than that of the ferrite core in the second vertical direction in the second cross-sectional shape, and at least a portion of the curved portion is shown only in the second cross-sectional shape,” in view of the teaching in the Horie reference, to obtain the same predictable result.
As per claims 5 and 19, the above modified patent claims in view of Ochiai and Lee is silent to “wherein the curved portion is gradually changed from an aspherical shape to a spherical shape in a direction from the other end to the one end of the ferrite core.” However, in the same field of endeavor, Horie remedies for the deficiencies of the above modified patent claims by explicitly disclosing the ferrite core having a first cross-sectional shape in a first vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see at least Fig. 3B) and a second cross-section shape in a second vertical direction perpendicular to the first vertical direction (see at least Fig. 3C,) the first cross-sectional shape being different from the second cross-sectional shape (see Figs. 3B and 3C where they are different from one another,) the ferrite core comprising a curved portion disposed at one end of the ferrite core (see at least Figs. 3A, 3D, for tapered portion 65 which is curved,) and the curved portion comprises at least two curved surfaces that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole (see at least Figs. 3A, 3D, 3F, disclosing the curved portion [65] comprising two curved surfaces [63C, 64C] that are curved from one side surface of one end of the ferrite core to a portion adjacent to the through-hole [6a] of the ferrite core in a direction toward the through-hole,) wherein the curved portion is gradually changed from an aspherical shape to a spherical shape in a direction from the other end to the one end of the ferrite core (see at least Figs. 3A-3F.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize Horie remedying for the above-discussed deficiencies of the patent claims or to modify the stylus pen to include “the curved portion gradually changed from an aspherical shape to a spherical shape in a direction from the other end to the one end of the ferrite core,” in view of the teaching in the Horie reference, to obtain the same predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights