DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al. [US 4,477,791].
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Thiel et al. discloses an insulation member [46] for being arranged adjacent to a transformer core-coil [12], the insulation member comprising:
- a flat base [46, figure 2] comprising a first half and a second half defined along a symmetry plane,
- a plurality of discrete spacers [44] projecting from the plane of the base, the spacers being attached to the first half and the second half for allowing a cooling fluid to circulate between the coil and the flat base, the first half comprising at least four zones, each zone having a plurality of spacers arranged according to a predetermined orientation with respect to an orientation axis [parallel to inner edges of cores 2] on the plane of the flat base and perpendicular to the symmetry plane, an orientation of spacers between adjacent zones being different, and the at least four zones comprising:
- a first zone comprising a plurality of spacers at an angle of between 120-150 degrees with respect to the orientation axis [figure 2];
- a second zone comprising a plurality of spacers oriented at an angle of between 80-100 degrees with respect to the orientation axis [figure 2];
- a third zone comprising a plurality of spacers oriented at an angle of between 80-100 degrees with respect to the orientation axis [figure 2]; and
- a fourth zone comprising a plurality of spacers oriented at an angle of between 120-150 degrees with respect to the orientation axis [figure 2], the first, second, third and fourth zones being arranged successively on the flat base from the symmetry plane to the orientation axis [groups of spacers 44 arranged in figure 1 with angles of about 40 degrees, 90 degrees, 145 and 125 degrees with respect to the orientation axis], wherein a surface of one of the zones covers at least 50% of a surface of the first half [figure 2].
Thiel et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific angle of the spacer arrangement in the third zone.
The specific angle orientation would have been an obvious design consideration, no critical shown, for the purpose of improving cooling flow.
Regarding claim 2, Thiel et al. further discloses at least 60% of the spacers in each zone are arranged according to the predetermined orientation.
Regarding claim 4, Thiel et al. discloses for each insulation member, an orientation of the spacers in the second half is symmetrical to the orientation of the spacers of the first half with respect to the symmetry plane.
Regarding claims 5-6, Thiel et al. further discloses between first half and second half, a first transition zone at an inlet area and a second transition zone at an outlet area, wherein the spacers are oriented about 35 degrees with respect to the orientation axis at the first transition zone and about 125 degrees with respect to the orientation axis at the second transition zone [figure 2].
Regarding claims 8-9, Thiel et al. discloses the insulation member is a substantially rounded rectangle and comprises a central hollow portion for allowing at least part of a transformer core to go through, wherein the spacers are at least one of rectangular, triangular, circular, elliptical, S-shaped, and a combination thereof [figure 2].
Regarding claim 10, Thiel et al. discloses the spacers arranged at both sides of the flat base [figures 3-4].
Regarding claims 13-14, Thiel et al. further discloses a magnetic core structure [22, 24] and a coil [30/32] having a first side and a second side; and a pair of insulation members [46, 46’] arranged on both sides of the coil [figures 3-4]. Thiel et al. discloses the insulation member for the coil structure of a transformer including a plurality of spacers arranged at the specific angles [see above].
Regarding claim 15, Thiel et al. further discloses at least 60% of the spacers in each zone are arranged according to the predetermined orientation.
Regarding claim 17, Thiel et al. disclose for each insulation member, an orientation of the spacers in the second half is symmetrical to the orientation of the spacers of the first half with respect to the symmetry plane.
Regarding claims 18-19, Thiel et al. further discloses between first half and second half, a first transition zone at an inlet area and a second transition zone at an outlet area, wherein the spacers are oriented about 35 degrees with respect to the orientation axis at the first transition zone and about 125 degrees with respect to the orientation axis at the second transition zone [figure 1].
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 16, Thiel et al. discloses different designs/arrangements of the spacers relative to the flat base at different angles and/or size/shapes.
The specific angles and/or varying orientation of the spacers would have been an obvious for the purpose of improving fluid/liquid flow through the coil structure.
Regarding claim 12, the specific material use for the flat base would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose improving insulation and/or withstanding against fluid/liquid/oil of the transformer. It’s official notice that cardboard or any other paper material is/are known material use for insulation in liquid/fluid filled transformer.
Regarding claim 20, the method steps would necessitate by the apparatus above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have any reason to arbitrarily subdivide the disclosed portion and would also not have any reason to arbitrarily modify the angles of some of the blocks in a particular portion, absent a specific teaching not disclosed in the prior art.
The Examiner disagrees.
Thiel, in figure 2, discloses an insulation member having a flat base [46] and a plurality of spacers [44] projecting from the base [figure 2], wherein the spacers arrange in four different zones [see below]. Thiel also discloses that the spacers [44] could be arranged at different angles and controlled by various locating lines and set-back lines. By using various locating lines, one of ordinary skill in the art could arrange the spacers at different angle range for zone 3 for the purpose of improving cooling flow.
PNG
media_image1.png
699
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Zone 1)][AltContent: textbox (Zone 2)][AltContent: textbox (Zone 3)][AltContent: textbox (Zone 4)]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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