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 .
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 6-8 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 6, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the primary and secondary windings relative to the magnetic cores intended by “wherein the magnetic flux is present responsive to the secondary winding being open and while current is applied to the primary winding.” It is still unclear what applicant is trying to claim, as amended.
Regarding claim 7, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the primary and secondary windings relative to the magnetic cores intended by “wherein the second core is substantially free of magnetizing flux when the primary winding is open and current is applied to the secondary winding.” It is still unclear what applicant is trying to claim, as amended.
Regarding claim 8, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement of the primary and secondary windings relative to the magnetic cores intended by “wherein the first core is substantially free of magnetizing flux when the secondary winding shorted circuited and current is applied to the primary winding, and wherein the second core and the primary windings retain leakage flux”. It is still unclear what applicant is trying to claim, as amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 18, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernick [US 3,170,133] in view of Frederick [US 5,083,101] and applicant’s specification [AAPA para 0047] or Kapoor et al. [WO2013/156397 A1].
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Kernick discloses a transformer [figure 4], having a magnetic core structure, comprising:
- an inner core [82] having a material with a first permeability;
- an outer core [84] having a material with a second permeability, wherein a material of the outer core different from that of the inner core;
- a first/primary coil [92 or 94, figure 4] wound on both inner and outer cores; and
- a secondary coil [98, figure 4] wound on the outer core.
Kernick discloses the instant claimed invention except for the specific material for the inner and outer core.
AAPA discloses MANC, a known material uses in magnetic core inductor and/or transformer application.
Kapoor et al. discloses a magnetic core structure for a transformer [figure 14], the magnetic core structure [17] comprising a first core [outer core 17b] and a second core [inner core 17a], wherein the first and second outer cores formed of nano soft magnetic materials having different permeability with the inner core permeability lower than that of the outer core.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use MANC material for the cores of Frederick, as suggested by AAPA or Kapoor et al., for the purpose of controlling and/or achieving magnetic flux/field.
Kernick in view of Frederick and AAPA/Kapoor et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific permeabitlty.
Frederick discloses a magnetic device [22], having a magnetic core structure, comprising:
- an inner core [32] having a material with a first permeability;
- an outer core [28] having a material with a second permeability;
- a first/primary coil [38, figure 2] wound on both inner and outer cores; and
- a secondary coil [36, figure 2] wound on the outer core, wherein the first permeability
less than the second permeability, wherein the inner core having a permeability of at least about 70.
The structure of Kernick, Frederick and AAPA or Kapoor et al. with the magnetic core structure and coils would provide leakage inductance.
Regarding claim 2, Frederick further discloses the inner and outer cores are ungapped cores. AAPA and/or Kapoor et al. discloses the use of soft magnetic materials.
Regarding claim 3, Frederick discloses the inner core having a permeability number of at least 70.
The specific permeability for the inner core would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intended applications and/or environments uses.
Regarding claims 6-8, as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, Kernick in view of Frederick and AAPA or Kapoor et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specifics responsive to the winding(s) being open/short-circuited while current is applied to the primary/secondary windings.
The specific responsive to the windings being open/short-circuited while current is applied to the primary/secondary windings would have been obvious design consideration based on the intended applications/environments uses for the purpose of providing different desired magnetic fluxes/fields and/or excitations.
Regarding claim 18, Frederick and/or Kapoor et al. both discloses different soft magnetic material for the inner and outer cores. The specific different MANC materials used for the magnetic cores would have been an obvious design consideration based on the specific intended applications and/or environments uses.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernick in view of Fredick and AAPA or Kapoor et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miaosen [EP 3024002 A1].
Regarding claim 9, Kernick, as modified, discloses the instant claimed invention except for a third core.
Miaosen discloses a magnetic core structure for a magnetic device [figure 3], comprising:
- a first core [130];
- a second core [116] arranged inside the first core;
- a third core [132] arrange outside of the first core; and
- at least one coil [124] wound about the magnetic core structure, wherein the first, second, third cores have different magnetic permeabilities.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a third core in the magnetic core structure of Kernick, as modified, as suggested by Miaosen, for the purpose of improving and/or maximizing flux distribution and maintaining constant reluctance.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the specific use of the first, second, third cores are leakage and/or magnetizing cores would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intended applications and/or environments uses.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Kernick discloses additional coils [96, 94, 92] wound about the magnetic cores.
The specific arrangement of the coil relative to the cores would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of enhancing leakage inductances and/or based on the intended applications and/or environments uses for the purpose of controlling magnetic flux/field.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernick, as modified, as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Cole [US 1,765,483].
Regarding claim 15, Kernick, in other embodiment of figures 1-3, discloses first and second cores [32, 34] arranged adjacent to each other and at least one coil wound about the cores.
Kernick, as modified, disclose the instant claimed invention except for a third core and the specific arrangement.
Cole discloses a magnetic core structure for a transformer [figures 1-5] comprising:
- a first core [1];
- a second core [1];
- a third core [2], wherein the first, second and third cores are ungapped [figure 5]; and
- a plurality of coils [3, 4] wound about the magnetic core structure, wherein the third core disposed between the first core and the second core with the first core arranged on one side of the third core and the second core arranged on the other side of the third core opposite to the first core.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the cores arrangement of Cole, in Kernick, as modified, for the purpose of facilitating different desired magnetic flux/field.
The structure of Kernick, as modified, with the magnetic core structure and coils would provide leakage inductance.
Regarding claim 16, the specific use of the first, second and third cores are leakage and magnetizing cores would have been an obvious for the purpose of improving leakage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 14-16 and 18 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.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1996. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TUYEN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights