DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 6 are 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Lu (US 20190148061 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lu teaches a metal module (6, Fig. 5; para 0022), applied to a transformer (3, Fig. 7; para 0020-0026), wherein the metal module is disposed outside the transformer (see Drawing: 1 or Fig. 7 that shows module 6 is outside the transformer ) and comprises:
a first metal sheet (1, Drawing: 1) electrically connected to a primary winding (30, Fig. 6; para 0030-0032) of the transformer; and
a second metal sheet (2, Drawing: 1) electrically connected to a secondary
winding (31, Fig. 6) of the transformer,
wherein there is a distance (not labeled; space between 30 and 31 in Fig. 6) between the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet, configured to offset a part of an interlayer capacitance of the transformer of the transformer.
Lu teaches the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet except the metal module is configured to offset a part of an interlayer capacitance of the transformer.
As of limitation "the metal module is configured to offset a part of an interlayer capacitance of the transformer", it is seen that Lu certainly teaches substantially identical structure as shown in Fig. 5-6 such as magnetic core, primary coil, secondary coil in same filed of endeavor. As per MPEP § 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, it is obvious to be labeled as the metal module is configured to offset a part of an interlayer capacitance of the transformer.
Regarding Claim 6:
As applied to claim 1, Lu teaches a size of the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet depends on a magnitude of the interlayer capacitance needed to be offset as explained 1 analysis above in light of MPEP § 2112.01.I
Regarding Claim 7:
As applied to claim 1, Lu teaches a plurality of metal modules (6, see Fig. 5), and the plurality of metal modules are disposed outside the magnetic core of the transformer respectively (construed from Fig. 6), the first metal sheet of each metal module is electrically connected to the primary winding of the transformer, and the second metal sheet of each metal module is electrically connected to the secondary winding of the transformer (see para 0022).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Ando (US 20190305689 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, Lu teaches the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet except a dielectric layer , wherein the dielectric layer covers the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet.
However, Ando taught in para 0084 (see Fig. 4) that the copper coil is laid, so as to be covered, with a dielectric material layer of, for example, SiO2. On the surface of the dielectric material layer or in the dielectric material layer, a copper coil is formed as a secondary-side winding or a primary-side winding. Thus, the primary-side copper coil and the secondary-side copper coil are electrically isolated from each other by the dielectric material layer.
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 a dielectric layer , wherein the dielectric layer covers the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet to provide a semiconductor device that offers a compact system by reducing the substrate mounting area (para 0013).
Regarding Claim 3:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Lu teaches that a part of the dielectric layer (construed from Ando’s Fig. 4) is disposed between the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet, and the part of the dielectric layer is configured to electrically insulate the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet from each other (see Ando’s para 0084).
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 3, the modified Lu teaches all features of the claim, but silent on the dielectric layer is a tape or a solid glue.
However, such features are well-known and the Examiner takes Official Notice (see MPEP § 2144.03.A) that the dielectric layer is a tape or a solid glue.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of what is well known into the combination of Lu and Ando to have the dielectric layer is a tape or a solid glue.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Lu and Ando in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of utilizing known structures to ensure successful device operation.
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 1, Lu teaches the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet except the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet are copper foil metal sheets.
However, Ando taught in para 0084 (see Fig. 4) that the copper coil is laid, so as to be covered, with a dielectric material layer of, for example, SiO2. On the surface of the dielectric material layer or in the dielectric material layer, a copper coil is formed as a secondary-side winding or a primary-side winding.
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 first metal sheet and the second metal sheet are copper foil metal sheets to provide better conductivity for electrical signal..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference, and/or newly found prior art reference(s).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kazi Hossain whose telephone number is 571-272-8182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (EST).
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 https:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached on 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.
/KAZI HOSSAIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837