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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the reference Faiz et al. is directed to fixed coil configurations. This argument is unpersuasive. Faiz et al. disclose electrotonic TAP-CHANGERs. Tap changers change taps to realize different voltage levels based on the switch of the switches. This is accomplished, of course, by selecting the switches to turn OFF and turn ON to produce the desired level. The applicant also argues that Faiz et al. do not show any switches. Faiz et al. disclose, Figure 7, plenty of switches. Table 2 shows voltage levels realized by the different switch configurations. More switches are shown in figures 8-10 as well. Figure 13 shows types of switches. More switches in figure 14-18. Therefore, the examiner finds the applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they illustrate incomplete empty schematic boxes that should be labeled to better understand the figures. 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.
The specification and drawings are separate sections. The drawings are not the specification and the specification is not the drawings. That is, the drawings are for illustrating the invention, the specification is for description and support of the invention shown and claimed; and the claims define the claimed invention. In addition, structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawings. Box 2 does not look like circuitry. Box 4 does not look like switching circuitry. They both look like rectangles, empty rectangles. The boxes are not even labeled “circuitry” or “switching circuitry”, just empty uninformative rectangle boxes; which then fail to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
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 semiconductor switches of claim 7, the half bridge arrangement of claim 8 and the two serially connected and independently controllable switches disposed across a winding segment wherein a node between the two switches is coupled either to a connection terminal of the first circuitry or to an interconnection leading to switches associated with a non-adjacent winding segment of claim 9 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.
After careful review of all the drawing figures, there are no semiconductor switches or any half bridge arrangements found anywhere. Even though 37 CFR 1.83(a) states that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims not merely specified in the specification, there are only empty rectangle boxes to be found. Hence the drawing objections.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the respective winding" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which winding segments out of all the segments claimed is the respective winding segment??
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being clearly anticipated by Faiz et al.
Claim 1; Faiz et al. disclose an inductive power device with variable active winding size (e.g. fig. 1), comprising: first circuitry (connected to terminals 1 and 2); at least two winding segments; and switching circuitry (e.g. “switches”) operable to connect selectable combinations of said winding segments serially to the first circuitry, characterized in that at least two of the winding segments are of unequal size (N1, n1- n3, etc.), wherein said at least two winding segments are provided as sequential portions of a total winding magnetically coupled to an opposite winding (i.e. the secondary: not shown), wherein the winding segments have uniform polarity with respect to said magnetic coupling.
Claim 2; the segments are between taps.
Claim 3; first: e.g. N1, second: e.g. n1, n3.
Claims 4 and 15; the winding do not overlap.
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17; the switches include or exclude segments.
Claim 7; SCRs = semiconductor switches.
Claim 8; switches considered connected as half bridges.
Claims 9 and 18; fig. 7. e.g. S1 and S2 across n1, etc.
Claims 10 and 19; these are tap changers.
Claim 13; these are transformers.
Claim 14; shorter taps and longer taps.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faiz et al.
Faiz et al. disclose the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for a respective size of each of the winding segments is proportional to values in a numerical sequence including successive powers of two.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Faiz et al., to include a respective size of each of the winding segments is proportional to values in a numerical sequence including successive powers of two since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPT 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Faiz et al., to include a respective size of each of the winding segments is proportional to values in a numerical sequence including successive powers of two in order to change the tap amount by powers of two exponentially increase or decrease the tap voltage amount.
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 GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 571-270-1682. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 3/10/2026