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 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bennett does not teach the opposite edges (equivalent to the claimed “outer peripheral area”) extend entirely around a central area and do not enclose the central area as recited in amended claim 1 and similar limitations in claim 8. Applicant asserts that a bonding material is applied around the two opposite edges but the sides are not coated with the bonding material. Therefore, Bennett does not teach the bonding material that extends around the entire periphery of the major face so as to enclose a central area.
In addition, applicant submits that Bennett’s disclosure and the present invention have different objectives. Bennett teaches a low-melting-point bonding material whereas the present invention explains peripheral adhesive approach to increase stiffness and control geometry. Therefore, applicant concludes a person with ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to convert Bennett’s discrete opposite edge portions bonding strips into outer peripheral adhesive area that extends entirely around and encloses the central area, as now required by claim 1.Applicant states that the present invention uses continuous adhesive perimeter that extends entirely around the central area to increase mechanical stability, but Bennett is directed to stress relief, which uses a low melting point bonding material. Accordingly, applicant alleges Bennett teaches away from applicant’s goal.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found not persuasive, respectfully. During the interview with Kirby Turn (Reg. No. 48,500), the examiner stated that it appears Bennett does not teach the adhesive coating surrounding the central area. However, upon further consideration of the claimed invention, each of the proposed amendment in the interview agenda and the amendment filed on 02/20/2026 does not require the adhesive coating “extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area.” The claim merely recites “adhesive coating on an outer peripheral area, …wherein the outer peripheral extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area.” That is, the claim only requires the adhesive coating being somewhere in the outer peripheral area, not in the entire outer peripheral area, the outer peripheral area being defined as “outer peripheral area extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area. The amendment allows the examiner to interpret the “outer peripheral area” as all areas outside the dotted box as annotated in Fig. 2D below.
PNG
media_image1.png
180
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The adhesive deposit 24D is coated on top side and bottom side outside of the dotted box. This meets the limitation “an adhesive coating on an outer peripheral area” as claimed. The dotted box extends to enclose or surround the central area 12c. Accordingly, after further consideration, the examiner determines Bennett still teaches “an adhesive coating on an outer peripheral area, …wherein the outer peripheral area extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area” as required by current claim 1 and similar limitations in claim 8. Even if the claim requires the adhesive coating extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area, it may still be obvious because Bennett teaches different ways to coat the adhesive bonding, as seen in Figs. 2A-2D, as stated during the interview.
The adhesive coating of Bennett can melt at as high temperature as 350˚C (col. 5, line 60). In the present invention, the adhesive coating may be heat resistant up to 300˚C to 400˚C. In other words, “low melting point” as disclosed in Bennett is a relative term because the adhesive coating material of Bennett and applicant’s adhesive coating have about the same heat resistance properties. Therefore, the Bennett’s adhesive coating disclosure and the applicant’s adhesive coating are similar, contrary to applicant’s allegation that they have different objectives and incompatible mechanical goals. Furthermore, Bennett does not discourage or prohibit applying the adhesive coating on the sides and upper and lower edges. Therefore, Bennett does not teach away from applicant’s invention.
The rest of the arguments are moot in view of the newly applied art.
The drawings objection is hereby withdrawn as the explanation made in the reply filed on 02/20/2026.
Drawings
The drawings received on 11/29/2022 are acceptable.
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 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousavi (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2021/0217551 A1) in view of Bennett et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,413,406) and Decristofaro et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2003/0201864 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mousavi teaches a hybrid transformer core 1 (FIG. 1, provided below for convenience) comprising:
a plurality of columns 5 and 7, each column comprising a plurality of first plies (“laminated plates” para. [0057]) of grain-oriented steel (paras. [0043] and [0045]); and
one or more yokes 3 each of the yokes comprising a plurality of second plies (“laminated plates” para. [0042]) each second ply comprising sheets of amorphous steel (para. [0043]).
PNG
media_image2.png
370
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mousavi does not expressly teach each second ply comprising sheets adhered to each other by an adhesive coating on an outer peripheral area of major faces of the sheets of amorphous steel that face another sheet of amorphous steel in the same second ply the major faces comprising a central area surrounded by the outer peripheral area the central area being free of the adhesive coating, wherein the outer peripheral area extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area, the adhesive coating comprises a silicon-based, heat-resistant coating.
Bennett et al., hereinafter referred to as “Bennett,” teaches a hybrid transformer core 40 (FIGs. 1 and 2), wherein
each second ply 12 comprising sheets adhered to each other by an adhesive coating 24D on an outer peripheral area (area outside the dotted box, annotated Fig. 2D) of major faces (flat face) of the sheets of amorphous steel that face another sheet of amorphous steel in the same second ply the major faces comprising a central area 12c (annotated Fig. 2D) surrounded by the outer peripheral area the central area being free of the adhesive coating, wherein the outer peripheral area extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area, wherein the adhesive coating comprises a heat-resistant coating (col. 2, lines 51-60, col. 4, 30-34, col. 5, lines 47-51, col. 7, lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image3.png
186
361
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 adhesive coating at outer peripheral area as taught by Bennett to the hybrid transformer core of Mousavi to improve mechanical bonding of the ply sheets.
Mousavi does not expressly teach the adhesive coating comprises a silicon-based, heat-resistant coating (para. [0058]).
Decristofaro et al., hereinafter referred to as “Decristofaro,” teaches a hybrid transformer core 70 (FIG. 5), wherein the adhesive coating (“adhesive bonding” para. [0039]) comprises a silicon-based, heat-resistant coating (para. [0058]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the silicon-based adhesive coating as taught by Decristofaro to the hybrid transformer of Mousavi to provide low elastic modulus, high peel strength, and high dielectric strength (para. [0058]).
With respect to claim 2, Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro teaches the hybrid transformer core of claim 1. Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro does not expressly teach
wherein the adhesive-coated outer peripheral area comprises four segments of the adhesive-coated outer peripheral area extending along four sides of the major face and each having an average or maximum width measured perpendicularly to a line along which the side extends, wherein a ratio determined as the average width of the segments of the adhesive-coated outer peripheral area that extend along the length direction divided by the sheet width is less than 0.15, and/or wherein a ratio determined as the average width of the segments of the adhesive-coated outer peripheral area that extend along the width direction divided by the sheet length is less than 0.15.
However, Bennett teaches different adhesive coating patterns could be used in Figs. 2A-2D and the corresponding specification (col. 6, lines 10-23). Therefore, it would be within the skill of a person with ordinary skill in the art to try to use the coating segments as claimed without undue experiment to provide different bonding characteristics. Therefore, 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 claimed adhesive coating segments as claimed, as would be obvious over, Bennett, to provide the required bonding strength to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 3, Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro teaches the hybrid transformer core of claim 1 wherein the adhesive coating is heat resistant up to at least 300° C (Bennett, col. 5, lines 47-51).
With respect to claim 7, Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro teaches the hybrid transformer core of claim 1, wherein the first plies and the second plies are stacked in a butt-lap arrangement or a mixed step-lap/butt-lap arrangement (Mousavi, para. [0053]).
With respect to claim 8, Mousavi teaches a transformer 11 (Fig. 4), comprising:
a hybrid transformer core 1 comprising:
a plurality of columns 5 and 7, each column comprising a plurality of first plies (“laminated plates” para. [0057]) of grain-oriented steel (paras. [0043] and [0045]); and
one or more yokes 3, each of the yokes comprising a plurality of second plies (“laminated plates” para. [0042]), each second ply comprising sheets (individual plates or “laminated plates”) of amorphous steel (para. [0043]); and
a plurality of windings 9 and 10 (para. [0068]).
Mousavi does not expressly teach
each second ply comprising sheets adhered to each other by an adhesive coating on an outer peripheral area of major faces of the sheets of amorphous steel that face another sheet of amorphous steel in the same second ply, the major faces comprising a central area surrounded by the outer peripheral area, the central area being free of the adhesive coating, wherein the outer peripheral area extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area, the adhesive coating comprises a silicon-based, heat-resistant coating.
Bennett teaches a hybrid transformer (FIGs. 1 and 2) comprising
each second ply (combination of sheets 12) comprising sheets 12 adhered to each other by an adhesive coating 24D on an outer peripheral area (area outside the dotted box, annotated Fig. 2D above) of major faces (flat face) of the sheets of amorphous steel that face another sheet of amorphous steel in the same second ply the major faces comprising a central area 12c (annotated Fig. 2D) surrounded by the outer peripheral area the central area being free of the adhesive coating, , wherein the outer peripheral area extends entirely around the central area so as to enclose the central area, wherein the adhesive coating comprises a heat-resistant coating (col. 2, lines 51-60, col. 4, 30-34, col. 5, lines 47-51, col. 7, lines 1-5).
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 adhesive coating at outer peripheral area as taught by Bennett to the hybrid transformer core of Mousavi to improve mechanical bonding of the ply sheets.
Mousavi does not expressly teach the adhesive coating comprises a silicon-based, heat-resistant coating (para. [0058]).
Decristofaro et al., hereinafter referred to as “Decristofaro,” teaches a hybrid transformer core 70 (FIG. 5), wherein the adhesive coating (“adhesive bonding” para. [0039]) comprises a silicon-based, heat-resistant coating (para. [0058]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the silicon-based adhesive coating as taught by Decristofaro to the hybrid transformer of Mousavi to provide low elastic modulus, high peel strength, and high dielectric strength (para. [0058]).
With respect to claim 9, Mousavi in view of Bennett teaches the transformer of claim 8, wherein the transformer is a distribution transformer (Mousavi, para. [0066]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii et al. (JP 59-181007).
With respect to claim 4, Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro teaches the hybrid transformer core of claim 1. Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro does not expressly teach the adhesive coating is a silicon-resin based coating.
Ishii et al., hereinafter referred to as “Ishii,” teaches a hybrid transformer (FIG. 1), wherein the adhesive coating is a silicon-resin based coating (Constitution). 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 silicon-resin based coating as taught by Ishii to the hybrid transformer of Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro to prevent deterioration of the magnetostriction (Constitution).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ettinger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,479,104).
With respect to claim 5, Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro teaches the hybrid transformer core of claim 1. Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro does not expressly teach insulating material between adjacent second plies.
Ettinger et al., hereinafter referred to as “Ettinger,” teaches a hybrid transformer (FIGs. 1-3) comprising insulating material 15 and or 16 between adjacent second plies 14 (col. 2, lines 17-21). 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 insulation as taught by Ettinger to the hybrid transformer of Mousavi in view of Bennett and Decristofaro to provide good resistance properties under normal operating conditions (col. 1, lines 36-43).
With respect to claim 6, Mousavi in view of Bennett, Decristofaro and Ettinger teaches the hybrid transformer core of claim 5, wherein the electrically insulating material comprises an electrically insulating adhesive or an electrically insulating powder (Ettinger, col. 2, lines 14-16 and 21-23).
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