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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5, 7 and 9-23 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.
Drawings
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 “at least one end screen is arranged between the at least one winding, and core yokes, and/or metallic structures” recited in claim 7 and similar limitations in claim 11, the “screens of the first and second dielectric structures are arranged at opposite longitudinal ends of the respective first and second dielectric structure, respectively” as claimed in claim 16 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 Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, it appears “a longitudinal axis” should be --the longitudinal axis-- in line 2
Regarding claim 12, it appears “a longitudinal axis” should be --the longitudinal axis-- in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 11, 13-16, 19 and 23 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 7, applicant should clarify if “one end screen” as claimed is the same as or different from the “sheet-like shaped screen” as recited in claim 5. For examination purpose, two those terms are interpreted as being the same element. The original claim, which is part of the specification, uses “end screen.” However, there is no detailed description given in in the “DETAILED DESCRIPTION” or anywhere else of the disclosure.
Similar rejection is applied in claims 11 and 23.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation "the at least one winding" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, applicant should clarify if the “at least two cylindrical dielectric screens” is the same as or different from the first cylindrical dielectric screen and the second dielectric screen as amended claim 5.
Similar rejection is applied in claims 15 and 19.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on claim 13 and 15, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, it’s not clear what’s intended by “screens of the first and second dielectric structures are arranged at opposite longitudinal ends of the respective first and second dielectric structure, respectively” as currently claimed. Does applicant mean the sleeve-like screens are arranged at opposite longitudinal ends of the dielectric structure? Such interpretation is made for examination.
Similar rejection and interpretation is applied in claim 19.
When amending an independent claim, applicant should review all the dependent claims for consistency and other potential 112 matters to help expediate the prosecution of the application.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Based on the best understanding of claim 7 interpretation in light of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, claim 7 does not further limit claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Similar rejection is applied in claim 11.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 9-11, 13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naor-Pomerantz et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0355510) in view of Rowe (U.S. Patent No. 6,060,975).
With respect to claim 5, Naor-Pomerantz et al., hereinafter referred to as “Naor-Pomerantz,” teaches a dry-type transformer (FIGs. 1A-4), comprising at least one first winding (Hv coils or Lv coils, FIG. 1A), at least one second winding (the other of Hv coils or Lv coils), a magnetic core 103 and at least one 3D printed dielectric structure 401 (FIG. 4) provided between the at least first and second windings, the dielectric structure comprising at least one cylindrical dielectric screen shaped (shaped on which first and second windings are wound) to be aligned with the shape of equipotential lines 106 of an electric field 108 that is generated in the transformer,
wherein the first winding defines a longitudinal axis (horizontal axis parallel to equipotential line 107),
wherein the at least one 3D printed dielectric structure comprises a first dielectric structure (dielectric structure formed by bobbin parts 401a1 and 401a2, annotated FIG. 4) having a first cylindrical dielectric screen (screen on which “Lv coils” are wound), and a second dielectric structure (dielectric structure formed by bobbin parts 401b1 and 401b2, annotated FIG. 4) having a second cylindrical dielectric screen (screen on which “Hv coils” are wound), wherein the second cylindrical dielectric screen at least partially coaxially surrounds the first cylindrical dielectric screen,
wherein the second dielectric structure is separate from the first dielectric structure, and
wherein both, the first dielectric structure and the second dielectric structure each further comprises a substantially sheet-like shaped screen 403 and 403a extending outwards from the respective cylindrical dielectric screen at least substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and surrounding the respective cylindrical dielectric screen sleeve-like with respect to the longitudinal axis (paras. [0022], [0032], [0038] and [0042]).
The process limitations “3D printed” does not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
PNG
media_image1.png
699
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Naor-Pomerantz does not expressly teach the dielectric structure comprising at least one supporting block to support the dielectric screen and the first winding and/or second winding.
Rowe teaches a dry-type transformer (FIG. 2), wherein the dielectric structure 25 comprising at least one supporting block 65 to support the dielectric screen 30 and the first winding and/or second winding (“coils” col. 1, lines 13-14, not expressly shown), wherein the dielectric structure having no gaps between its constituent parts, including the at least one supporting block (col. 2, lines 62-64 and col. 3, lines 18-21). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the supporting block as taught by Rowe to the dry-type transformer of Naor-Pomerantz to improve mechanical strength (col. 3, lines 18-21).
With respect to claim 7, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 5, wherein at least one end screen 403 and or 403a is arranged between the at least one winding, and core yokes (upper and lower yokes), and/or metallic structures (Naor-Pomerantz, paras. [0032] and [0038]).
With respect to claim 9, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 5, further including air ducts 404 configured to receive an airflow from at least one cooling fan and to distribute the airflow uniformly at least to the windings (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 10, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 5, wherein the dielectric structure is made by 3D printing polymers or composite materials comprising fibers and polymers (Naor-Pomerantz, paras. [0042] and [0045], Rowe, col. 3, lines 7-12). As stated above, the process limitations “3D printed” does not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 11, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 5, wherein the first winding defines a longitudinal axis, wherein the at least one dielectric structure further comprises an end screen 403 or 403a, extending at least substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis for further electrically isolating the first winding and/or the second winding, wherein the end screen is formed directly connected to the at least one supporting block and/or the cylindrical dielectric screen of the at least one dielectric structure (Naor-Pomerantz, paras. [0032] and [0038]).
With respect to claim 13, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 5, wherein the at least one dielectric structure has at least two cylindrical dielectric screens (bobbins formed by inner bobbin parts 401a1 and 401a2 and outer bobbin parts 401b1 and 401b2), comprising a radially inner cylindrical dielectric screen 401a1 and 401a2 and a radially outer cylindrical dielectric screen 402b1 and 402b2, wherein a radial gap or duct is formed between the radially inner cylindrical dielectric screen and the radially outer cylindrical dielectric screen (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 15, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 5, comprising a first dielectric structure 401 having a first cylindrical dielectric screen401a1 and 401a2, and a second dielectric structure having a second cylindrical dielectric screen 402b1 and 402b2, wherein the second cylindrical dielectric screen at least partially coaxially surrounds the first cylindrical dielectric screen, and wherein the second dielectric structure is separate from the first dielectric structure (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 16, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer of claim 15, wherein the screens 403 and 403a of the first and second dielectric structures are arranged at opposite longitudinal ends of the respective first and second dielectric structure, respectively (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 17, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer of claim 5, wherein an air duct 404 or fluid duct is formed between the at least one dielectric structure and at least one of the first winding, the second winding, or the core (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 18, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer of claim 5, wherein the dielectric structure is made by 3D printing polymers or composite materials comprising fibers and polymers, and wherein the dielectric structure is made by at least one of the Selective Laser Sintering, Fused Deposition Modeling, or Stereolithography 3D printing technologies (Naor-Pomerantz, paras. [0042] and [0045], Rowe, col. 3, lines 7-12). As stated above, the process limitations “3D printed” does not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 19, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches a dry-type transformer according to claim 5, comprising a first dielectric structure having a first cylindrical dielectric screen 401a1 and 401a2, and a second dielectric structure 401b1 and 401b2 having a second cylindrical dielectric screen,
wherein the second cylindrical dielectric screen at least partially coaxially surrounds the first cylindrical dielectric screen,
wherein the second dielectric structure is separate from the first dielectric structure, wherein the screens 403 and 403a of the first and second dielectric structures are arranged at opposite longitudinal ends of the respective first and second dielectric structure, respectively, and
wherein an air duct 404 or fluid duct is formed between the at least one dielectric structure and the first winding; and/or between the at least one dielectric structure and the second winding; and/or between the dielectric structure and the core (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 20, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches a dry-type transformer according to claim 5,
wherein the sheet-like shaped screens are configured for further electrically isolating the first winding and/or the second winding (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 21, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches a dry-type transformer according to claim 20, wherein the sheet-like shaped screens are formed directly connected to at least one respective supporting block and/or directly connected to the respective cylindrical dielectric screen of the respective dielectric structure (Naor-Pomerantz, para. [0038], Rowe, col. 2, lines 62-64 and col. 3, lines 18-21).
With respect to claim 22, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches a dry-type transformer according to claim 5, wherein the dielectric structure 25 is printed in a one-piece structure having no gaps between constituent parts of the dielectric structure, including the cylindrical dielectric screen and the at least one supporting block 65 (Rowe, col. 2, lines 62-64 and col. 3, lines 18-21).
With respect to claim 23, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 22, wherein the one-piece structure further includes at least one end screen 403 or 403a arranged between the at least one winding and at least one of a core yoke or a metallic structure.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Outten et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2013/0106546 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 5. Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe does not expressly teach the at least one dielectric structure comprises a radially protruding positioning element for radially positioning the at least one dielectric structure relative to a longitudinal axis (L) defined by the first winding.
Outten et al., hereinafter referred to as “Outten,” teaches a dry-type transformer (FIG. 3A), wherein the at least one dielectric structure 57 or 28 comprises a radially protruding positioning element for radially positioning the at least one dielectric structure relative to a longitudinal axis (L) defined by the first winding (para. [0031]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the radially protruding positioning element as taught by Outten to the dry-type transformer of Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe to create airflow channel to improve cooling of the dry-type transformer (para. [0031]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2001/0052835 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe teaches the dry-type transformer according to claim 13. Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe does not expressly teach the at least one dielectric structure further comprises at least one fluid barrier structure that is designed and arranged to close the radial gap or duct in a fluid-tight manner.
Ito et al., hereinafter referred to as “Ito,” teaches a dry-type transformer (FIG. 1), wherein the at least one dielectric structure 4a-4c further comprises at least one fluid barrier structure 15a and or 15b that is designed and arranged to close the radial gap or duct in a fluid-tight manner (para. [0024]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the fluid barrier structure as taught by Ito to the dry-type transformer of Naor-Pomerantz in view of Rowe to prevent the cooling medium from an unwanted area and direct the cooling medium to the desired region to improve efficiency of cooling the dry-type transformer (para. [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights