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 with respect to claims 6-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 20 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.
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 Masuda (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2022/0238271 A1).
With respect to claim 6, 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) (paras. [0032]-[0033], [0036], [0046]-0047] and [0049]).
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.
Masuda teaches a transformer (FIGs. 1-5), wherein the plurality of primary windings 1 are positioned between the first layer 21 and the nth layer 22, wherein the plurality of primary windings are not formed in an alternating arrangement with the first and second secondary windings (paras. [0043] and [0044])..
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 Masuda to the transformer of Dai to improve ease of connection between an external device and the terminals of the first and second secondary windings (para. [0151]).
With respect to claim 7, Dai in view of Masuda teaches the transformer of claim 6, wherein the first magnetic core is an E-core (Dai, para. [0037], Masuda, para. [0035]).
With respect to claim 8, Dai in view of Masuda teaches the transformer of claim 6, wherein the second magnetic core is an I-core (Dai, para. [0042], Masuda, para. [0035]).
With respect to claim 9, Dai in view of Masuda 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, 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) (paras. [0032]-[0033], [0036], [0043] and [0046]-0047]).
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.
Masuda teaches a transformer (FIGs. 1-5), wherein the plurality of primary windings 1 are positioned between the first layer 21 and the nth layer 22, wherein the plurality of primary windings are not formed in an alternating arrangement with the first and second secondary windings (paras. [0043] and [0044]).
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 Masuda to the transformer of Dai to improve ease of connection between an external device and the terminals of the first and second secondary windings (para. [0151]).
With respect to claim 13, Dai in view of Masuda teaches the transformer of claim 12, wherein the first magnetic core is an E-core (Dai, para. [0037], Masuda, para. [0035]).
With respect to claim 14, Dai in view of Masuda teaches the transformer of claim 12, wherein the second magnetic core is an I-core (Dai, para. [0042], Mehrotra, para. [0035]).
With respect to claim 15, Dai in view of Masuda 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 Masuda 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 Masuda 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 Masuda, 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 Masuda teaches the transformer of claim 6. Dai in view of Masuda 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 Masuda to reduce eddy current (para. [0025]).
With respect to claim 20, Dai in view of Masuda teaches the transformer of claim 12. Dai in view of Masuda 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 Masuda to reduce eddy current (para. [0025]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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