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 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there would be no motivation to combine Matsutani into Konishi to obtain the technical solution of the present invention because the technical solution and technical effect of the magnetic component of Matsutani are different from those of the magnetic assembly of the present invention. Applicant asserts that the right coil 501 and the left coil 503 are both in the same winding directing, including the center coil 504.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. The magnetic component of Matsutani related to a DC/DC converter (col. 1, lines 27-31). Similarly, Konishi and the present invention are directed to a power conversion unit (Konishi, para. [007] and claim 1 of the present invention). Therefore, Konishi, Matsutani, and the present invention are in the same field of invention. The inductor configuration of FIGs. 23A and 23B is different from the inductor configuration of FIGs. 23C and 23D. The inductor configuration of FIGs. 23C and 23D has the three coils 501, 504 and 503 in the same direction. However, the inductor configuration of FIGs. 23A and 23B is applied in the Office action dated 10/21/2025. As seen in FIGs. 23A, each left coil 503 and right coil 501 is wound counter-clockwise direction from input 20 while center coil 504 is wound clockwise from input 20. Therefore, the flux direction around the core of the center coil 504 will be opposite of the flux direction around the cores of left and right coils 503 and 501. Therefore, Matsutani teaches the magnetic flux direction as claimed, and a person with ordinary skill in the art could replace the coil winding structure of Konishi with the coil winding structure of Matsutani with the motivation as set forth in the Office action. Accordingly, the examiner maintains there would be motivation to combine Konishi and Matsutani.
The examiner withdraws the combination of Konishi and Lu in the Office action dated 10/21/2025.
Since the rejection of Konishi in view of Matsutani is maintained, it’s proper to make this Office action Final.
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, 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2016/0056667 A1)in view of Matsutani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,259,648 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Konishi et al., hereinafter referred to as “Konishi,” teaches a power conversion circuit (FIG. 1 below for convenience), comprising a three-phase inductor 15 and a switching conversion unit 21 and or 22, a first end (left end) of an inductor in each phase of the three-phase inductor electrically coupled to a connection (connection point to the switching conversion unit) of a bridge arm (arm of the switching conversion unit) in one phase of the switching conversion unit, a second end (right end) of the inductor in each phase of the three-phase inductor electrically coupled to one phase of a three-phase AC power source 6, and the three-phase inductor is integrated into a magnetic assembly 100 (FIG. 13 below for convenience), the magnetic assembly comprising:
two magnetic yokes 103a and 103b relatively parallel to each other;
a first winding column 101r, a second winding column 101s and a third winding column 101t spaced apart sequentially and located between the two magnetic yokes, the second winding column located between the first winding column and the third winding column; and
three windings 102r, 102s and 102t wound around the first winding column, the second winding column and the third winding column in one-to-one correspondence for forming the inductor in one phase of the three-phase inductor respectively, and phase differences between power frequency currents flowing in any two of the three windings are 120°;
wherein when a reference current is applied to each of the three windings, the reference current flows in from the first end of each of the three windings and flows out from the second end, magnetic fluxes 112r and 112t excited by the reference current on the first winding column and the third winding column have a first reference direction (down direction) (paras. [0033], [0054] and [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
447
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Konishi does not expressly teach, at least in the embodiment of FIG. 13,
a magnetic flux excited on the second winding column has a second reference direction, wherein the second reference direction is opposite to the first reference direction.
Matsutani et al., hereinafter referred to as “Matsutani,” teaches a power conversion unit (FIG. 23B), wherein a magnetic flux (flux caused by coil 502) excited on the second winding column has a second reference direction (direction of flux caused by coil 502), wherein the second reference direction is opposite to the first reference direction (flux direction caused by windings 501 and 503) (col. 21, lines 18-28). 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 opposite flux direction as taught by Matsutani to the power conversion circuit of Konishi to provide the required flux density to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 7, Konishi in view of Matsutani teaches the power conversion circuit according to claim 1, wherein the three windings are wound around the first winding column, the second winding column and the third winding column in the same manner (Konishi, para. [0054]).
With respect to claim 21, Konishi in view of Matsutani teaches the power conversion circuit according to claim 1, wherein the power conversion circuit is an inverter circuit or a power factor correction circuit (Konishi, para. [0033]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Matsutani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimoto.
With respect to claim 18, Konishi in view of Matsutani teaches the power conversion circuit according to claim 1. Konishi in view of Matsutani does not expressly teach the first winding column, the second winding column and the third winding column are made of alloy powder core or a material with high magnetic permeability containing air gaps.
Fujimoto teaches a power conversion circuit (FIG. 7), wherein the first winding column (top leg), the second winding column (bottom leg) and the third winding column (center leg) are made of alloy powder core or a material with high magnetic permeability containing air gaps (gap in the third winding column) (para. 0073]). 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 column material as taught by Fujimoto to the power conversion circuit of Konishi in view of Matsutani to provide the required saturation magnetic flux density values (para. [0073]).
With respect to claim 19, Konishi in view of Matsutani teaches the power conversion circuit according to claim 1. Konishi in view of Matsutani does not expressly teach the two magnetic yokes, the first winding column, the second winding column and the third winding column are made of alloy powder core.
Fujimoto teaches a power conversion circuit (FIG. 7), wherein the two magnetic yokes (left and right yokes), the first winding column (top leg), the second winding column (bottom leg) and the third winding column (middle leg) are made of alloy powder core (para. 0073]). 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 column material as taught by Fujimoto to the power conversion circuit of Konishi in view of Matsutani to provide the required saturation magnetic flux density values (para. [0073]).
With respect to claim 20, Konishi in view of Matsutani and Fujimoto teaches the power conversion circuit according to claim 19, wherein a relative magnetic permeability of the alloy powder core is less than or equal to 200 (Fujimoto, para. [0073]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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