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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 20 and 21 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 1, 4 and 21 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) and Ger et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2010/0019875 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]).
Kippley does not also expressly teach
wherein the first primary coil is wounding around a first winding part of the first winding column on the side adjacent to the central column, the first secondary coil is wounding around a second winding part of the first winding column on the side away from the central column, and the second primary coil is wounding around a third winding part of the second winding column on the side adjacent to the central column, the second secondary coil is wounding around a fourth winding part of the second winding column on the side away from the central column.
Ger et al., hereinafter referred to as “Ger,” teaches a magnetic component 500’ (FIG. 20A),
wherein the first primary coil P411 is wounding around a first winding part 142’a (annotated FIG. 20A) of the first winding column 142’ on the side adjacent to the central column 141’a, the first secondary coil S411 is wounding around a second winding part 142’b of the first winding column 142’e on the side away from the central column, and the second primary coil P412 is wounding around a third winding part 142’c of the second winding column 142’f on the side adjacent to the central column, the second secondary coil S412 is wounding around a fourth winding part 142’d of the second winding column on the side away from the central column (para. [0028]).
PNG
media_image3.png
303
542
media_image3.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 primary and secondary windings as taught by Ger to the magnetic component of Kippley to improve ease of connection between the first primary winding and the second primary winding.
With respect to claim 4, Kippley in view of Won and Ger 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]).
With respect to claim 21, Kippley in view of Won and Ger teaches the magnetic component according to claim 1, wherein 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 (Won, para. [0050] and [0051]).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippley in view of Won and Ger, 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 and Ger teaches the magnetic component according to claim 4. Kippley in view of Won and Ger 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 and Ger to control the leakage of the coils (para. [0031]).
PNG
media_image4.png
362
387
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Kippley in view of Won, Ger 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 and Ger, 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 and Ger 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 (Kippley, para. [0038]).
Kippley in view of Won and Ger 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 and Ger to permit use of the apparatus of the magnetic core in DC (direct current) applications without the magnetic component saturating (para. [0033]).
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