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 claim(s) have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of windings for successive sets" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "x" in line 6. X is undefined.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the number of taps" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the set of windings" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which set among the sets?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the set of windings between taps that is 3x" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which set is this?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "iterated n times on the regulator" [sic] in line 2. Does the applicant mean “on” the regulator or “in” the regulator?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the number of windings" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. So many windings and sets of windings and number of windings have been claimed, which specific number of windings is the applicant referring to?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the number of windings" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. So many windings and sets of windings and number of windings have been claimed, which specific number of windings is the applicant referring to?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one stage having at least one input tap" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which stage or what stage has at least one input tap?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one stage regulation steps" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What is this limitation?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one stage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is still not distinguishable between all of the stages the applicant is trying to claim. label each limitation separately and individually so that there is absolutely no confusion about which limitation the applicant is referring back to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "plus 1 additional step" in line 4. Is this limitations adding a “1” to something or providing for “one” additional step being added?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the next regulator stage" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What “next” stage is the applicant referring to? Exactly which stage is the next stage?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the plurality of stages" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. which stages are included in this plurality and which are excluded? Is the applicant including the plurality of series connected stages (of claim 6) and the at least one stage (of claim 1) or just one or the other??
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a number of regulations steps" [sic] in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same number of regulation steps as claimed in claim 1 line 4 or some other number of steps?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the series sum" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the steps effected" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the plurality of stages" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "switch logic for the stage" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What switch logic is the applicant referring to?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the group of outcomes in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "with respective windings" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which windings are the respective windings?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "switch logic for the stage" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What switch logic is the applicant referring to?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each respective stage" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only one stage was claimed in claim 1. How many stages does the applicant think are claimed?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the group of outcomes in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "with respective windings" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which windings are the respective windings?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the group of outcomes in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each respective stage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What respective stages is the applicant referring to?
Claims 2-9 also inherit the same from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlen et al. (US 96185950).
The prior art reference is applied as best as the claim language is understood. Carlen et al. disclose a tap changing regulator (10) comprising at least one regulator stage comprising a set of input taps (e.g. 24) and a set of switches ina switching matrix (e.g. 26, 28, 58, 46, 48), the switches selectively and individually engagable in respective on-off modes (see col. 2 lines 1-11 and 47-55; col. 3 lines 46- 51) to operably connect one or more of the taps to an output voltage to effect a number of regulation steps. While the ratios described in the claims are not clear, Carlen et al. does not expressly disclose any kind of specific ratio of 1:1, 1:2 or 1:3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide specific ratios of 1:1, 1:2 or 1:3 since it has been where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, 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 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Carlen et al. to include ratios of 1:1, 1:2 or 1:3 in order to have the ability to adapt the voltage ratio of the transformer, within a particular range, so that the voltage on the output side of the transformer is within a desired range around the nominal voltage.
Claim 2; e.g. col. 1 lines 33-35.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite. This claim is given no patentable weight.
Claims 4-5 and 7, as best understood, 16 and 18 are spaced apart and have different ratios.
Claims 8 and 9; i.e. adding parts of voltage of the windings (controller not shown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would still be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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 11/20/2025