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 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Dai nor Song teaches “a ratio of the keep-away distance y to the distance k is approximately equal to an integer, wherein the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer” as claimed in claim 6 and similar limitations in claim 12. Applicant asserts that Dai does not give numerical values for keep-away distance and the distance k, and paragraph [0009] expressly teaches the figures are not necessarily drawn to scales. Similarly, there’s no dimension data for the keep-way distance and the distance k in Song. Accordingly, it’s improper to rely on visual inspection for the claimed limitations. Even if Dai in view of Song teaches the claimed limitations (which applicant does not agree), there would be no motivation to combine Song to Dai.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is found not persuasive, respectfully. Please note the examiner is not relying on the drawings for scale (specific dimensions), only what the drawings reasonably teach to a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2125: The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)). In this case, the drawings of each Song and Dai reasonably show the “ratio of the keep-away distance y to the distance k is approximately equal to an integer” as claimed. Accordingly, it’s reasonable to use visual inspection for the teaching of the claimed ratio since the examiner does not rely the drawings to scale. In addition, applicant is reminded that if the textual portion of the specification does not expressly recite structure corresponding to an element of a claim, drawings alone may provide that support. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The examiner interprets that the “optimum keep-away distance” is whatever the ratio in Dai and or Song as “optimum keep-away distance” as claimed is arbitrary and not clearly defined in the claim or the originally filed specification. The examiner also maintains the combination is proper with the motivation as set forth in the Office action dated 05/01/2026. Accordingly, Dai in view of Song teaches “a ratio of the keep-away distance y to the distance k is approximately equal to an integer, wherein the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer” as claimed in claim 6 and similar limitations in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the originally filed specification does not disclose “the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer” as amended.
Claims 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected as being directly or indirectly dependent on claim 6 or 12.
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 6-20 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 and 12, it’s not clear what’s intended by “the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer” as amended. Because there’s no detailed explanation in the originally filed specification, the examiner is not clear how to interpret the amended features. For example, the examiner is not clear on what is “optimum keep-way distance” and whether or not “optimum keep-way distance” has patentable weight.
Claims 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected as being directly or indirectly dependent on claim 6 or 12 and therefore inheriting the indefiniteness thereof.
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 6-9, 12-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0371512 A1) in view of Song et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2018/0174737 A1).
With respect to claim 6, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Dai et al., hereinafter referred to as “Dai,” teaches a transformer 106 (FIGs. 1 and 4) comprising:
a first magnetic core 204 (FIG. 4) having a first portion 220 in contact with a second magnetic core 206 and a second portion 214 separated from the second magnetic core by a distance k (distance of air gap 268);
a plurality of primary windings 115 (FIG. 1) formed around the second portion;
a first secondary winding (upper secondary winding 117, FIG. 1) forming a first layer;
a second secondary winding (lower secondary winding 117) forming an nth layer, and wherein the plurality of primary windings, and the first secondary winding and the second secondary winding are formed around the second portion;
wherein the second magnetic core defines a recess 270 having a depth t (depth of recess 270), and wherein the nth layer is positioned at a keep-away distance y (distance R1a, annotated FIG. 4, which is R2-R3) from the first portion, and wherein a ratio of the keep-away distance y to the distance k is approximately equal to an integer, wherein the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer (paras. [0032]-[0033], [0036], [0046]-0047] and [0049]). The examiner applies visual inspection for the claimed ratio.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dai does not expressly teach
the plurality of primary windings are positioned between the first layer and the nth layer, and wherein the plurality of primary windings, wherein the plurality of primary windings are not formed in an alternating arrangement with the first and second secondary windings.
Best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Song et al., hereinafter referred to as “Song,” teaches a transformer (FIG. 7), wherein the plurality of primary windings PRI are positioned between the first layer (“first layer” or “sixth layer” para. [0027]) and the nth layer (the other of “first layer” or “sixth layer” para. [0027]), wherein the plurality of primary windings are not formed in an alternating arrangement with the first and second secondary windings SEC, and
wherein the nth layer is positioned at a keep-away distance y (spacing distance SEC1, annotated Fig. 7 below) from the first portion (outer “magnetic core column” para. [0024]), and wherein a ratio of the keep-away distance y to the distance k is approximately equal to an integer, wherein the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer (paras. [0024] and [0027]). The examiner applies visual inspection for the claimed ratio. The combination would result in “wherein the second magnetic core defines a recess 270 adjacent the nth layer and having a depth t” as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
230
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 windings arrangement as taught by Song to the transformer of Dai to simplify winding process and insulation.
With respect to claim 7, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 6, wherein the first magnetic core is an E-core (Dai, para. [0037]).
With respect to claim 8, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 6, wherein the second magnetic core is an I-core (Dai, para. [0042]).
With respect to claim 9, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 6, wherein a ratio of depth t to distance k is between 0.01 to 10 (Dai, para. [0046]).
With respect to claim 12, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Dai teaches a transformer 106 (FIGs. 1 and 4) comprising:
a first magnetic core 204 (FIG. 4) having a first portion 220 in contact with a second magnetic core 206 and a second portion 214 separated from the second magnetic core by a distance e (distance of air gap 268);
a plurality of primary windings 115 (FIG. 1) formed around the second portion;
a first secondary winding (upper secondary winding 117, FIG. 1) forming a first layer;
a second secondary winding (lower secondary winding 117) forming an nth layer, and wherein the plurality of primary windings, and the first secondary winding and the second secondary winding are formed around the second portion;
wherein the second magnetic core defines a recess 270 adjacent the second portion and having a depth w (depth of recess 270); and
and wherein the nth layer is positioned at a keep-away distance q (distance R1a, annotated FIG. 4, which is R2-R3) from the first portion, and wherein a ratio of the keep-away distance y to the distance e is approximately equal to an integer, wherein the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer (paras. [0032]-[0033], [0036], [0046]-0047] and [0049]). The examiner applies visual inspection for the claimed ratio.
Dai does not expressly teach
the plurality of primary windings are positioned between the first layer and the nth layer, and wherein the plurality of primary windings, wherein the plurality of primary windings are not formed in an alternating arrangement with the first and second secondary windings.
Best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Song teaches a transformer (FIG. 7), wherein the plurality of primary windings PRI are positioned between the first layer (“first layer” or “sixth layer” para. [0027]) and the nth layer (the other of “first layer” or “sixth layer” para. [0027]), wherein the plurality of primary windings are not formed in an alternating arrangement with the first and second secondary windings SEC, and
wherein the nth layer is positioned at a keep-away distance q (spacing distance SEC1, annotated Fig. 7) from the first portion (outer “magnetic core column” para. [0024]), and wherein a ratio of the keep-away distance q to the distance e (height of gap G) is approximately equal to an integer, wherein the ratio is configured to determine an optimum keep-away distance to reduce winding losses in the transformer (paras. [0024] and [0027]). The examiner applies visual inspection for the claimed ratio.
The combination would result in “wherein the second magnetic core defines a recess 270 adjacent the nth layer and having a depth t” as claimed. 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 windings arrangement as taught by Song to the transformer of Dai to simplify winding process and insulation.
With respect to claim 13, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 12, wherein the first magnetic core is an E-core (Dai, para. [0037]).
With respect to claim 14, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 12, wherein the second magnetic core is an I-core (Dai, para. [0042]).
With respect to claim 15, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 12, wherein a ratio of depth w to distance e is between 0.01 to 10 (Dai, para. [0046]).
With respect to claim 17, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 12, wherein the recess is formed in shape of a rectangle (Dai, para. [0073]).
With respect to claim 18, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 12, wherein the recess is formed in shape of a trapezoid (Dai, para. [0073]). Rectangle is considered trapezoid under the inclusiveness definition of trapezoid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezoid).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0371512 A1) in view of Song, as applied to claims 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Mehrotra et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2006/0038649 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 6. Dai in view of Song does not expressly teach the first layer has a first inner diameter and the nth layer has a second inner diameter, and wherein a difference between the first inner diameter and the second inner diameter defines a distance z, and a ratio of distance z to distance k is between 0.01 to 10.
Mehrotra et al., hereinafter referred to as “Mehrotra,” teaches a transformer 52 (FIG. 5a), wherein the first layer (layer of first secondary winding S1) has a first inner diameter and the nth layer has a second inner diameter (layer of secondary winding S5), and wherein a difference between the first inner diameter and the second inner diameter defines a distance z (length of region 74), and a ratio of distance z to distance k (width of gap 64) is between 0.01 to 10 (para. [0025]). 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 ratio as taught by Mehrotra to the transformer of Dai in view of Song to reduce eddy current (para. [0025]).
With respect to claim 20, Dai in view of Song teaches the transformer of claim 12. Dai in view of Song does not expressly teach wherein the first layer has a first inner diameter and the n.sup.th layer has a second inner diameter, and wherein a difference between the first inner diameter and the second inner diameter defines a distance q, and a ratio of distance q to distance e is between 0.01 to 10.
Mehrotra teaches a transformer 52 (FIG. 5a), wherein the first layer (layer of first secondary winding S1) has a first inner diameter and the nth layer (layer of secondary winding S5) has a second inner diameter, and wherein a difference between the first inner diameter and the second inner diameter defines a distance q (length of region 74), and a ratio of distance q (width of gap 64) to distance e is between 0.01 to 10 (para. [0025]). 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 ratio as taught by Mehrotra to the transformer of Dai in view of Song to reduce eddy current (para. [0025]).
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 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