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 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that neither Kippley nor Won teaches “the number of turns of the first primary coil is equal to the number of turns of the second secondary coil, and the number of turns of the second primary coil is equal to the number of turns of the first secondary coil” as amended. Applicant asserts that Won teaches a second primary winding portion formed by winding a secondary coil by N turns; and a second secondary winding portion formed by winding the secondary coil by n turns, and n and N may satisfy the condition n<=N. n and N may satisfy the condition: n=N=5 or the condition: n=3, N=5 (para. [0050-0051]). However, applicant states that Won does not disclose the primary and secondary coils are arranged so that each opposing pair has an equal number of turns as required by amended claim 1.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. Paragraph [0050] of Won discloses the “first primary winding portion 10…[has] n turns; a second primary winding 11 [has] N turns; a (sic) second primary winding portion 20…has N turns; and a second secondary winding 21…[has] n turns.” As seen in FIG. 1, primary winding portion 10 of the primary coil 1 is connected to the second primary winding portion 11, and winding portion 20 of the secondary coil 2 is connected to the second secondary winding portion 21. In addition, the corresponding FIG. 2B shows the winding portion 20 is labeled as “secondary N turns.” Accordingly, a person with ordinary skill in the art would know “a second primary winding portion 20” as disclosed is intended to mean “a first secondary winding portion 20.” The primary winding portion 10 has n turns, and the second secondary winding portion 21 has n turns, too; and the second primary winding portion 11 has N turns, and the first secondary winding portion 20 also has N turns (para. [0050] and FIG. 2B). Accordingly, Won teaches “the number of turns of the first primary coil is equal to the number of turns of the second secondary coil, and the number of turns of the second primary coil is equal to the number of turns of the first secondary coil” as amended.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippley et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2013/0083575 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2012/0223797 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kippley teaches a magnetic component (FIG. 3A), comprising:
a primary coil group 314A and 314B comprising a first primary coil 314A and a second primary coil 314B;
a secondary coil group (“secondary windings” para. [0038]) comprising a first secondary coil 316A (annotated FIG. 3A below) and a second secondary coil 316B; and
a magnetic core 300, comprising:
a first cover 306A and 306B and a second cover 310A and 310B;
a central column 312 connecting with the first cover and the second cover, no air gap existing between the central column and the first cover and between the central column and the second cover; and
a first winding column 308A and a second winding column 308B respectively disposed on two opposite sides of the central column;
wherein, the first primary coil and the second primary coil are respectively winding around the first winding column and the second winding column; the first secondary coil and the second secondary coil are respectively winding around the first winding column and the second winding column (paras. [0038] and [0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kippley does not expressly teach the number of turns of the first primary coil is different from the number of turns of the second primary coil; [and] where the number of turns of the first secondary coil is different from the number of turns of the second secondary coil.
Won et al., hereinafter referred to as “Won,” teaches a magnetic component 100 [FIG. 1]), where the number of turns n of the first primary coil 10 is different from the number of turns N of the second primary coil 11; [and] where the number of turns N of the first secondary coil 20 is different from the number of turns n of the second secondary coil 21;
wherein the number of turns (n turns) of the first primary coil is equal to the number of turns (n turns) of the second secondary coil, and the number of turns (N turns) of the second primary coil is equal to the number of turns (N turns) of the first secondary coil (paras. [0050]- [0052]).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
377
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 different coil turns as taught by Won to the magnetic component of Kippley to control external magnetic flux leakage (para. [0064]).
With respect to claim 4, Kippley in view of Won teaches the magnetic component according to claim 1 comprising a first supporting column 304A and a second supporting column 304B respectively connected to the first cover and the second cover, the first winding column being disposed between the first supporting column and the central column, the second winding column being disposed between the second supporting column and the central column (Kippley, paras. [0038] and [0039]).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippley in view of Won, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Garcia (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2015/0054611 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Kippley in view of Won teaches the magnetic component according to claim 4. Kippley in view of Won does not expressly teach the first winding column or the second winding column comprises an air gap.
Garcia teaches a magnetic core (FIG. 2), wherein the first winding column 24a (annotated Fig. 2) or the second winding column 22a comprises an air gap 24b or 22b (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 air gap on the first or second winding column as taught by Garcia to the magnetic component of Kippley in view of Won to control the leakage of the coils (para. [0031]).
PNG
media_image3.png
362
387
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Kippley in view of Won and Garcia teaches the magnetic component according to claim 5, wherein the number of the air gap of the first winding column is different from the number of turns of the first primary coil, wherein the number of the air gap of the second winding column is different from the number of turns of the second primary coil (Won, paras. [0051] and [0052], Garcia, para. [0031]). The combination would result in the claimed limitations.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippley in view of Won, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wadlington et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2007/0046415 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Kippley in view of Won teaches the magnetic component according to claim 4, wherein one end 308c (annotated FIG. 3A above) of the first winding column is connected to the first supporting column; one end 308d of the second winding column is connected to the second supporting column (para. [0038]).
Kippley in view of Won does not expressly teach an air gap exists between the other end of the first winding column and the central column; an air gap exists between the other end of the second winding column and the central column.
Wadlington teaches a magnetic component (FIG. 2), wherein one end (left end of column 131) of the first winding column 131 is connected to the first supporting column 137; an air gap 162 exists between the other end (right end of column 131) of the first winding column and the central column 117; one end (right end of column 121) of the second winding column 121 is connected to the second supporting column 127; an air gap 160 exists between the other end (left end) of the second winding column and the central column (paras. [0036]).
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 winding columns connection to the supporting columns and airgaps as taught by Wadlington to the magnetic core of Kippley in view of Won to permit use of the apparatus of the magnetic core in DC (direct current) applications without the magnetic component saturating (para. [0033]).
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