DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group II and species 1, 3-9 there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/20/25.
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.
1. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Leipold et al. (US 20140266531).
Regarding claim 1, Leipold et al. (figure 7 and para 0086-0098) discloses wherein a first winding (206) coupled to a second winding (208); a first terminal (218) coupled to a first end of the first winding (see figure 7); a second terminal (220) coupled to a second end of the first winding (see figure 7), wherein there is an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding,(see figure 7 of Leipold showing an similar inductive structure that would allow for an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding); and a third terminal (222) coupled to the second winding (see figure 7), wherein a terminal position of the third terminal along the second winding mitigates the imbalance on the first winding. (see figure 7 of Leipold showing an asymmetrical design that includes varying distances between terminals 218 and 218 and third terminal 222 to mitigate a differential imbalance).
Regarding claim 2, Leipold et al. (para 0027) discloses a differential port, wherein the differential port includes the first terminal and the second terminal.
2. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dasgupta et al. (US 20200144976).
Regarding claim 1, Dasgupta et al. (figure 5 and para 0047) discloses wherein a first winding (506) coupled to a second winding (508); a first terminal (P1) coupled to a first end of the first winding (see figure 5); a second terminal (P2) coupled to a second end of the first winding (see figure 5), wherein there is an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding,(see figure 5 of Dasgupta showing an similar inductive structure that would allow for an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding); and a third terminal (S2) coupled to the second winding (see figure 5), wherein a terminal position of the third terminal along the second winding mitigates the imbalance on the first winding. (see figure 5 of Dasgupta showing an asymmetrical design that includes varying distances between terminals P1 and P2 and third terminal S2 to mitigate a differential imbalance).
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.
3. Claims 3-4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leipold et al. (US 20140266531) in view of Dasgupta et al. (US 20200144976).
Regarding claim 3, Leipold et al. (para 0027) discloses a teaching wherein the inductive device can be designed to have a single-ended port but does not expressly disclose wherein the single-ended port includes a third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal.
Dasgupta et al. (para 0043/0049 and 0065-0071) discloses a teaching a single-ended port, wherein the single-ended port (608) includes a third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal. (see also para 0065-0071 disclosing teachings wherein the single-ended port includes the third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a teaching a single-ended port, wherein the single-ended port as taught by includes a third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal as taught by Dasgupta et al. to the inductive device of Leipold et al. so as to aloe the inductive device the capability of having benefits like impedance matching, noise reduction and preventing ground loop issues in systems with different ground potentials.
Regarding claim 4, Leipold et al. (figure 7) discloses wherein the terminal position of the third terminal is off a center of the circuitry.
Regarding claim 18, Leipold et al. (figure 7 and para 0086-0098) discloses
a first winding (206) coupled to a second winding (208); a first terminal (218) coupled to a first end of the first winding (see figure 7); a second terminal (220) coupled to a second end of the first winding (see figure 7), wherein there is an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding,(see figure 7 of Leipold showing an similar inductive structure that would allow for an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding); and wherein a first position of the first terminal and a second position of the second terminal along the first winding mitigates the imbalance on the first winding.(see figure 7 of Leipold showing an asymmetrical design that includes varying distances between terminals 218 and 218 and third terminal 222 to mitigate a differential imbalance).
Leipold et al. (figure 7 and para 0086-0098) discloses a third terminal (222) coupled to the second winding (see figure 7) and para (0027) of Leipold et al. discloses teaching wherein the inductive device can be designed to have a single-ended port but does not expressly disclose wherein the third terminal is a single-ended port coupled to the second winding, wherein the single-ended port includes a single-ended terminal and a ground terminal.
Dasgupta et al. (para 0043/0049 and 0065-0071) discloses a teaching wherein of a single-ended port, wherein the single-ended port (608) includes the third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal. (see also para 0065-0071 disclosing teachings wherein the single-ended port includes the third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a teaching of a single-ended port, wherein the single-ended port as taught by includes the third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal as taught by Dasgupta et al. to the inductive device of Leipold et al. so as to alow the inductive device the capability of having benefits like impedance matching, noise reduction and preventing ground loop issues in systems with different ground potentials.
Regarding claim 19, Leipold et al. (para 0027) discloses a differential port, wherein the differential port includes the first terminal and the second terminal. See also Dasgupta et al. (para 0061/0063)
Regarding claim 20, Leipold et al. (figure 7) discloses wherein the terminal position of the third terminal is off a center of the circuitry. See also Dasgupta et al. (figure 5)
4. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta et al. (US 20200144976).
Regarding claim 18, Dasgupta et al. (para 0043-0049 and 0065-0071) discloses
a first winding (506) coupled to a second winding (508); a first terminal (P1) coupled to a first end of the first winding (see figure 5); a second terminal (P2) coupled to a second end of the first winding (see figure 5), wherein there is an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding,(see figure 5 of Dasgupta et al. showing an similar inductive structure that would allow for an imbalance between the first terminal and the second terminal when a current flows through the first winding); and wherein a first position of the first terminal and a second position of the second terminal along the first winding mitigates the imbalance on the first winding.(see figure 5 of Dasgupta et al. showing an asymmetrical design that includes varying distances between terminals P1 and P2 and third terminal S2 to mitigate a differential imbalance).
Dasgupta et al. et al. (figure 5 and para 0047) discloses a third terminal (S2) coupled to the second winding (see figure 5) but does not expressly disclose wherein the third terminal is a single-ended port coupled to the second winding, wherein the single-ended port includes a single-ended terminal and a ground terminal.
Dasgupta et al. (figure 6 and para 0049) discloses a teaching wherein of a single-ended port, wherein the single-ended port (608a/S1) includes the third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a teaching of a single-ended port, wherein the single-ended port as taught by includes the third terminal and a ground terminal coupled to the second winding, wherein the ground terminal is connected to a reference signal as taught by Dasgupta et al. (figure 6) to the inductive device of Dasgupta et al. (figure 5) so as to allow the inductive device the capability of having benefits like impedance matching, noise reduction and preventing ground loop issues in systems with different ground potentials.
Regarding claim 19, Dasgupta et al. (para 0061/0063) discloses a differential port, wherein the differential port includes the first terminal and the second terminal.
Regarding claim 20, Dasgupta et al. (figure 5) discloses wherein the terminal position of the third terminal is off a center of the circuitry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837