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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 12-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. [CN 112886821] in view of Li et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0076723], Yuan et al. [CN 109245545], and Zou et al. [A comprehensive design approach for a three-winding planar transformer] (as cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang et al. shows a magnetic component for a galvanically isolated resonant converter (Figs. 4-5 with teachings from Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a first core (top core, see Fig. 5) comprising a first outer post (left leg), a second outer post (right leg), and a center post (middle leg) disposed between the first and second outer posts (see Fig. 5, see English translation);
a second core (bottom core, see Fig. 5);
a primary winding (4P, 2P) with primary turns comprising first primary turns (4P) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 5) and second primary turns (2P) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 5); and
a secondary winding (left 1S, right 1S) with secondary turns comprising first secondary turns (left 1S) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 5) and second secondary turns (right 1S) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 5),
wherein the first and second primary turns are unequal (see Fig. 5, 4P and 2P are unequal, see English translation), and/or the first and second secondary turns are unequal,
wherein the center post (middle leg) of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap (lgb, see Fig. 5), and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance (see English translation), wherein the center post is used as a leakage path (see English translation);
wherein the first core (top core) further comprises a bottom plate (top portion, see Fig. 5) on which the first outer post (left leg), the second outer post (right leg), and the center post (middle leg) are disposed (see Fig. 5).
Wang et al. does not explicitly show LCL-T resonant converter and the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
For further support and disclosure, Li et al. shows a converter (Fig. 15) clearly teaching and suggesting a primary winding (4P, 2P) with primary turns comprising first primary turns (4P) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 15) and second primary turns (2P) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 15); and a secondary winding (2S, 4S) with secondary turns comprising first secondary turns (2S) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 15) and second secondary turns (4S) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 15), wherein the first and second primary turns are unequal (see Fig. 15, 4P and 2P are unequal), and/or the first and second secondary turns are unequal (see Fig. 15, 2S and 4S are unequal), wherein the center post (middle leg) of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap (lg2, see Fig. 15), and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance (Paragraphs [0067]-[0069], [0071]-[0074]), wherein the center post is used as a leakage path (Paragraphs [0067]-[0069], [0071]-[0074]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the center post of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap, and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance, wherein the center post is used as a leakage path as taught by Li et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics with less electromagnetic interference and no additional eddy current loss (Paragraph [0073]).
Wang et al. in view of Li et al. does not explicitly show LCL-T resonant converter and the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
Yuan et al. shows an LCL-T resonant converter (Fig. 1 or Fig. 3, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an LCL-T resonant converter as taught by Yuan et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics with high voltage gain improvement (Abstract, see English translation).
Wang et al. in view of Li et al. and Yuan et al. does not show the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
Zou et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 14(a)) teaching and suggesting the first outer post (left leg of top core), the second outer post (right leg of top core), the center post (middle leg of top core) and the bottom plate (top portion of top core) have a same thickness (see Fig. 14(a), a thickness of left leg of top core, right leg of top core, and middle leg of top core are D7-D5 which is 10 and a thickness of top portion of top core is D7 which is 10 which is the same).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness as taught by Zou et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al. and Yuan et al. to simplify design to reduce volume and cost to achieve desirable operating characteristics with enhanced efficiency and suppressed parasitic capacitance (Abstract, Introduction).
Regarding Claim 13, Zou et al. shows a thickness of the second core (bottom core) is equal to the thickness of the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate of the first core (see Fig. 14(a), a thickness of bottom core is D8 which is 10 and the thickness of left leg of top core, right leg of top core, and middle leg of top core are D7-D5 which is 10 and a thickness of top portion of top core is D7 which is 10 which is the same).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. shows all the cores and windings form a transformer (see Figs. 4-5), and the magnetic component magnetically integrates the transformer and the controllable leakage inductance (see Figs. 4-5) to serve as a resonant inductor (see English translation).
Li et al. shows all the cores and windings form a transformer (see Figs. 12-15), and the magnetic component magnetically integrates the transformer and the controllable leakage inductance (see Figs. 12-15) to serve as a resonant inductor (Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. shows a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns (a sum of 4P, 2P is 6P and a sum of left 1S, right 1S is 2S which is unequal).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang et al. shows the first and second outer posts (left, right legs) of the first core (top core) are separated from the second core by a second air gap (lga), and the second air gap (lga) is used to control a magnetizing inductance of the magnetic component (see English translation).
Li et al. shows the first and second outer posts (311, 312) of the first core (310) are separated from the second core by a second air gap (lg1), and the second air gap (lg1) is used to control a magnetizing inductance of the magnetic component (Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kohn [U.S. Patent No. 2,914,721].
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kohn shows a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns (Col. 2, Lines 65-71, a sum of elements 11, 13 is 215+112 is 327 and a sum of elements 15, 16 is 15+1075 is 1090 which is unequal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns as taught by Kohn for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to facilitate good regulation within a wide range of applied voltage and load (Col. 1, Lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claims 12 and 16 above, and further in view of Li et al. [High Frequency PCB Winding Transformer with Integrated Inductors for a Bi-directional Resonant Converter] (as cited by applicant and hereinafter as “Li IEEE”).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the magnetizing inductance is greater than the controllable leakage inductance.
Li IEEE shows a transformer teaching and suggesting shows the magnetizing inductance (Lm) is greater than the controllable leakage inductance (Lkp or Lk, see Table II and Table III).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetizing inductance is greater than the controllable leakage inductance as taught by Li IEEE for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to achieve sufficiently strong magnetic coupling and low losses (see Table III and Page 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above.
In addition, Li IEEE shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (B. Loss and Footprint Optimization and Table III, as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Li IEEE reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value as taught by Li IEEE for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics (Table III).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Khaligh et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0172880].
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above.
In addition, Khaligh et al. shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (Abstract, Paragraph [0083], as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value as taught by Khaligh et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics (Paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show the first primary turns and the first secondary turns on the first outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses.
Khaligh et al. shows the first primary turns (element 402 at Board 1 Left OR element 2102 at Board 1 Left) and the first secondary turns (element 404 at Board 2 Left OR element 2104 at Board 1 Left) on the first outer post (left leg) are separated with a controllable gap (G1) to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094], as of limitation "separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first primary turns and the first secondary turns on the first outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses as taught by Khaligh et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics with high efficiency and high power density (Abstract, Paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show the second primary turns and the second secondary turns on the second outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses.
Khaligh et al. shows the second primary turns (element 402 at Board 1 Right OR element 2102 at Board 1 Right) and the second secondary turns (element 404 at Board 1 Right OR element 2104 at Board 1 Right) on the second outer post (right leg) are separated with a controllable gap (G1) to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094], as of limitation "separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second primary turns and the second secondary turns on the second outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses as taught by Khaligh et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics with high efficiency and high power density (Abstract, Paragraph [0083]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Murakami et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350513].
Regarding Claim 22, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show a tertiary winding wound around the center post.
Murakami et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 1-2A) teaching and suggesting a tertiary winding (3c or 3d) wound around the center post (see Fig. 2A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a tertiary winding wound around the center post as taught by Murakami et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to enable such noise filter designing as to separate noise propagation mode into so-called differential mode (DM) and common mode (CM), by matching impedances of forward and return paths of a current route (Paragraph [0041]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yamasaki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0146577].
Regarding Claim 22, Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show a tertiary winding wound around the center post.
Yamasaki et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 6-9) teaching and suggesting a tertiary winding (31) wound around the center post (232B, see Figs. 6-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a tertiary winding wound around the center post as taught by Yamasaki et al. for the device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to connect to stabilizing circuit controlling external devices for desirable operating characteristics (Paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 12-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaligh et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0172880] in view of Li et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0076723], Yuan et al. [CN 109245545], and Zou et al. [A comprehensive design approach for a three-winding planar transformer] (as cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 12, Khaligh et al. shows a magnetic component for a galvanically isolated resonant converter (Abstract, Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)), comprising:
a first core (bottom core, see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)) comprising a first outer post (left leg), a second outer post (right leg), and a center post (middle leg) disposed between the first and second outer posts (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c));
a second core (upper core, see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c));
a primary winding (402 and/or 2102) with primary turns comprising first primary turns (left portion of element 402 and/or 2102) located around the first outer post (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)) and second primary turns (right portion of element 402 and/or 2102) located around the second outer post (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)); and
a secondary winding (404 and/or 2104) with secondary turns comprising first secondary turns (left portion of element 404 and/or 2104) located around the first outer post (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)) and second secondary turns (right portion of element 404 and/or 2104) located around the second outer post (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)),
wherein the first and second primary turns are unequal (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c), element 402 and/or 2102 are unequal based on interleaved unevenly and asymmetrically interleaved), and/or the first and second secondary turns are unequal (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c), element 404 and/or 2104 are unequal based on interleaved unevenly and asymmetrically interleaved),
wherein the center post (middle leg) of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c), Paragraphs [0090]-[0094]), and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094]), wherein the center post is used as a leakage path (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094]);
wherein the first core (bottom core) further comprises a bottom plate (bottom portion, see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)) on which the first outer post (left leg), the second outer post (right leg), and the center post (middle leg) are disposed (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)).
Khaligh et al. does not explicitly show LCL-T resonant converter and the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
For further support and disclosure, Li et al. shows a converter (Fig. 15) clearly teaching and suggesting a primary winding (4P, 2P) with primary turns comprising first primary turns (4P) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 15) and second primary turns (2P) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 15); and a secondary winding (2S, 4S) with secondary turns comprising first secondary turns (2S) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 15) and second secondary turns (4S) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 15), wherein the first and second primary turns are unequal (see Fig. 15, 4P and 2P are unequal), and/or the first and second secondary turns are unequal (see Fig. 15, 2S and 4S are unequal), wherein the center post (middle leg) of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap (lg2, see Fig. 15), and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance (Paragraphs [0067]-[0069], [0071]-[0074]), wherein the center post is used as a leakage path (Paragraphs [0067]-[0069], [0071]-[0074]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the center post of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap, and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance, wherein the center post is used as a leakage path as taught by Li et al. for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics with less electromagnetic interference and no additional eddy current loss (Paragraph [0073]).
Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al. does not explicitly show LCL-T resonant converter and the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
Yuan et al. shows an LCL-T resonant converter (Fig. 1 or Fig. 3, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an LCL-T resonant converter as taught by Yuan et al. for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics with high voltage gain improvement (Abstract, see English translation).
Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al. and Yuan et al. does not explicitly show the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
Zou et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 14(a)) teaching and suggesting the first outer post (left leg of top core), the second outer post (right leg of top core), the center post (middle leg of top core) and the bottom plate (top portion of top core) have a same thickness (see Fig. 14(a), a thickness of left leg of top core, right leg of top core, and middle leg of top core are D7-D5 which is 10 and a thickness of top portion of top core is D7 which is 10 which is the same).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness as taught by Zou et al. for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al. and Yuan et al. to simplify design to reduce volume and cost to achieve desirable operating characteristics with enhanced efficiency and suppressed parasitic capacitance (Abstract, Introduction).
Regarding Claim 13, Zou et al. shows a thickness of the second core (bottom core) is equal to the thickness of the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate of the first core (see Fig. 14(a), a thickness of bottom core is D8 which is 10 and the thickness of left leg of top core, right leg of top core, and middle leg of top core are D7-D5 which is 10 and a thickness of top portion of top core is D7 which is 10 which is the same).
Regarding Claim 14, Li et al. shows all the cores and windings form a transformer (see Figs. 12-15), and the magnetic component magnetically integrates the transformer and the controllable leakage inductance (see Figs. 12-15) to serve as a resonant inductor (Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 15, Khaligh et al. shows a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns (Board 2 Left of element 402 is 5 and Board 2 Right of element 402 is 4 which have a sum of 9 and Board 2 Left of element 404 is 3 and Board 2 Right of element 404 is 4 which have a sum of 7 which is unequal as shown in Fig. 9(a) OR Board 2 Left of element 2102 is 5 and Board 2 Right of element 2102 is 6 which have a sum of 11 and Board 2 Left of element 2104 is 3 and Board 2 Right of element 2104 is 2 which have a sum of 5 which is unequal as shown in Fig. 21(c)).
Regarding Claim 16, Khaligh et al. shows the first and second outer posts (left, right legs) of the first core (bottom core) are separated from the second core by a second air gap (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c), Paragraphs [0090]-[0094]), and the second air gap (see Figs. 9(a)-9(b), 12(b), and/or 21(c)) is used to control a magnetizing inductance of the magnetic component (Paragraph [0098]).
Li et al. shows the first and second outer posts (311, 312) of the first core (310) are separated from the second core by a second air gap (lg1), and the second air gap (lg1) is used to control a magnetizing inductance of the magnetic component (Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 18, Khaligh et al. shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (Abstract, Paragraph [0083], as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Regarding Claim 19, Khaligh et al. shows the first primary turns (element 402 at Board 1 Left OR element 2102 at Board 1 Left) and the first secondary turns (element 404 at Board 2 Left OR element 2104 at Board 1 Left) on the first outer post (left leg) are separated with a controllable gap (G1) to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094], as of limitation "separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses).
Regarding Claim 20, Khaligh et al. shows the second primary turns (element 402 at Board 1 Right OR element 2102 at Board 1 Right) and the second secondary turns (element 404 at Board 1 Right OR element 2104 at Board 1 Right) on the second outer post (right leg) are separated with a controllable gap (G1) to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094], as of limitation "separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kohn [U.S. Patent No. 2,914,721].
Regarding Claim 15, Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kohn shows a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns (Col. 2, Lines 65-71, a sum of elements 11, 13 is 215+112 is 327 and a sum of elements 15, 16 is 15+1075 is 1090 which is unequal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns as taught by Kohn for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to facilitate good regulation within a wide range of applied voltage and load (Col. 1, Lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claims 12 and 16 above, and further in view of Li et al. [High Frequency PCB Winding Transformer with Integrated Inductors for a Bi-directional Resonant Converter] (as cited by applicant and hereinafter as “Li IEEE”).
Regarding Claim 17, Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the magnetizing inductance is greater than the controllable leakage inductance.
Li IEEE shows a transformer teaching and suggesting shows the magnetizing inductance (Lm) is greater than the controllable leakage inductance (Lkp or Lk, see Table II and Table III).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetizing inductance is greater than the controllable leakage inductance as taught by Li IEEE for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to achieve sufficiently strong magnetic coupling and low losses (see Table III and Page 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above.
In addition, Li IEEE shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (B. Loss and Footprint Optimization and Table III, as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Li IEEE reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value as taught by Li IEEE for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics (Table III).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Murakami et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350513].
Regarding Claim 22, Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show a tertiary winding wound around the center post.
Murakami et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 1-2A) teaching and suggesting a tertiary winding (3c or 3d) wound around the center post (see Fig. 2A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a tertiary winding wound around the center post as taught by Murakami et al. for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to enable such noise filter designing as to separate noise propagation mode into so-called differential mode (DM) and common mode (CM), by matching impedances of forward and return paths of a current route (Paragraph [0041]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yamasaki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0146577].
Regarding Claim 22, Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show a tertiary winding wound around the center post.
Yamasaki et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 6-9) teaching and suggesting a tertiary winding (31) wound around the center post (232B, see Figs. 6-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a tertiary winding wound around the center post as taught by Yamasaki et al. for the device as disclosed by Khaligh et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to connect to stabilizing circuit controlling external devices for desirable operating characteristics (Paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 12-14, 16, 18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da-Cunha-Alves et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0128008] in view of Li et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0076723], Yuan et al. [CN 109245545], and Zou et al. [A comprehensive design approach for a three-winding planar transformer] (as cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 12, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. shows a magnetic component for a galvanically isolated resonant converter (Figs. 1-13 and 15-16), comprising:
a first core (5a) comprising a first outer post (51a), a second outer post (53a), and a center post (52a) disposed between the first and second outer posts (see Figs. 12-13 and 15-16);
a second core (5b);
a primary winding (P1, P3) with primary turns comprising first primary turns (P1) located around the first outer post (see Figs. 12-13 and 15-16) and second primary turns (P3) located around the second outer post (see Figs. 12-13 and 15-16); and
a secondary winding (S1, S3) with secondary turns comprising first secondary turns (S1) located around the first outer post (see Figs. 12-13 and 15-16) and second secondary turns (S3) located around the second outer post (see Figs. 12-13 and 15-16),
wherein the center post (52a) of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap (middle element 61, see Figs. 12-13 and 15-16), and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance (Paragraphs [0105], [0112], [0119]), wherein the center post is used as a leakage path (Paragraphs [0105], [0112], [0119]);
wherein the first core (5a) further comprises a bottom plate (top portion of element 5a) on which the first outer post (51a), the second outer post (53a), and the center post (52a) are disposed (see Figs.12-13 and 15-16).
Da-Cunha-Alves et al. does not explicitly show LCL-T resonant converter and the first and second primary turns are unequal, and/or the first and second secondary turns are unequal and the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
Li et al. shows a converter (Fig. 15) clearly teaching and suggesting a primary winding (4P, 2P) with primary turns comprising first primary turns (4P) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 15) and second primary turns (2P) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 15); and a secondary winding (2S, 4S) with secondary turns comprising first secondary turns (2S) located around the first outer post (see Fig. 15) and second secondary turns (4S) located around the second outer post (see Fig. 15), wherein the first and second primary turns are unequal (see Fig. 15, 4P and 2P are unequal), and/or the first and second secondary turns are unequal (see Fig. 15, 2S and 4S are unequal), wherein the center post (middle leg) of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap (lg2, see Fig. 15), and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance (Paragraphs [0067]-[0069], [0071]-[0074]), wherein the center post is used as a leakage path (Paragraphs [0067]-[0069], [0071]-[0074]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second primary turns are unequal, and/or the first and second secondary turns are unequal, the center post of the first core and the second core are separated by a first air gap, and the first and second primary turns, the first and second secondary turns, and the first air gap are used to control and integrate a controllable leakage inductance, wherein the center post is used as a leakage path as taught by Li et al. for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics with less electromagnetic interference and no additional eddy current loss (Paragraph [0073]).
Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al. does not explicitly show LCL-T resonant converter and the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
Yuan et al. shows an LCL-T resonant converter (Fig. 1 or Fig. 3, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an LCL-T resonant converter as taught by Yuan et al. for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics with high voltage gain improvement (Abstract, see English translation).
Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al. and Yuan et al. does not explicitly show the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness.
Zou et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 14(a)) teaching and suggesting the first outer post (left leg of top core), the second outer post (right leg of top core), the center post (middle leg of top core) and the bottom plate (top portion of top core) have a same thickness (see Fig. 14(a), a thickness of left leg of top core, right leg of top core, and middle leg of top core are D7-D5 which is 10 and a thickness of top portion of top core is D7 which is 10 which is the same).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness as taught by Zou et al. for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al. and Yuan et al. to simplify design to reduce volume and cost to achieve desirable operating characteristics with enhanced efficiency and suppressed parasitic capacitance (Abstract, Introduction).
Regarding Claim 13, Zou et al. shows a thickness of the second core (bottom core) is equal to the thickness of the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate of the first core (see Fig. 14(a), a thickness of bottom core is D8 which is 10 and the thickness of left leg of top core, right leg of top core, and middle leg of top core are D7-D5 which is 10 and a thickness of top portion of top core is D7 which is 10 which is the same).
Regarding Claim 14, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. shows all the cores and windings form a transformer (see Figs. 1-11), and the magnetic component magnetically integrates the transformer and the controllable leakage inductance (see Figs. 1-11) to serve as a resonant inductor (Paragraph [0060]).
Li et al. shows all the cores and windings form a transformer (see Figs. 12-15), and the magnetic component magnetically integrates the transformer and the controllable leakage inductance (see Figs. 12-15) to serve as a resonant inductor (Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 16, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. shows the first and second outer posts (51a, 53a) of the first core (5a) are separated from the second core (5b) by a second air gap (left, right elements 61), and the second air gap (left, right elements 61) is used to control a magnetizing inductance of the magnetic component (Paragraph [0097]).
Li et al. shows the first and second outer posts (311, 312) of the first core (310) are separated from the second core by a second air gap (lg1), and the second air gap (lg1) is used to control a magnetizing inductance of the magnetic component (Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 18, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. references has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Regarding Claim 22, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. shows a tertiary winding (T1b) wound around the center post (see Figs. 12-13 and 15-16).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kohn [U.S. Patent No. 2,914,721].
Regarding Claim 15, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns.
Kohn shows a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns (Col. 2, Lines 65-71, a sum of elements 11, 13 is 215+112 is 327 and a sum of elements 15, 16 is 15+1075 is 1090 which is unequal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a sum of the first primary and secondary turns is unequal to a sum of the second primary and secondary turns as taught by Kohn for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to facilitate good regulation within a wide range of applied voltage and load (Col. 1, Lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., Zou et al. as applied to claims 12 and 16 above, and further in view of Li et al. [High Frequency PCB Winding Transformer with Integrated Inductors for a Bi-directional Resonant Converter] (as cited by applicant and hereinafter as “Li IEEE”).
Regarding Claim 17, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the magnetizing inductance is greater than the controllable leakage inductance.
Li IEEE shows a transformer teaching and suggesting shows the magnetizing inductance (Lm) is greater than the controllable leakage inductance (Lkp or Lk, see Table II and Table III).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetizing inductance is greater than the controllable leakage inductance as taught by Li IEEE for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to achieve sufficiently strong magnetic coupling and low losses (see Table III and Page 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above.
In addition, Li IEEE shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (B. Loss and Footprint Optimization and Table III, as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Li IEEE reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value as taught by Li IEEE for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics (Table III).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Khaligh et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0172880].
Regarding Claim 18, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above.
In addition, Khaligh et al. shows the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value (Abstract, Paragraph [0083], as of limitation "controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second primary turns and the first and second secondary turns are controlled to make a total loss, comprising a core loss and a winding loss, of the magnetic component less than a preset value as taught by Khaligh et al. for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics (Paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 19, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show the first primary turns and the first secondary turns on the first outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses.
Khaligh et al. shows the first primary turns (element 402 at Board 1 Left OR element 2102 at Board 1 Left) and the first secondary turns (element 404 at Board 2 Left OR element 2104 at Board 1 Left) on the first outer post (left leg) are separated with a controllable gap (G1) to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094], as of limitation "separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first primary turns and the first secondary turns on the first outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses as taught by Khaligh et al. for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics with high efficiency and high power density (Abstract, Paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 20, Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. shows as applied above but does not show the second primary turns and the second secondary turns on the second outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses.
Khaligh et al. shows the second primary turns (element 402 at Board 1 Right OR element 2102 at Board 1 Right) and the second secondary turns (element 404 at Board 1 Right OR element 2104 at Board 1 Right) on the second outer post (right leg) are separated with a controllable gap (G1) to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094], as of limitation "separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses", it is seen that the Khaligh et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second primary turns and the second secondary turns on the second outer post are separated with a controllable gap to reduce parasitic capacitance and to minimize fringing field related eddy current losses as taught by Khaligh et al. for the device as disclosed by Da-Cunha-Alves et al. in view of Li et al., Yuan et al., and Zou et al. to reduce losses to achieve optimization design for desirable electrical characteristics with high efficiency and high power density (Abstract, Paragraph [0083]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11 are allowed.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Zou et al. does not show “the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have a same thickness” is found not persuasive. Zou et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 14(a)) teaching and suggesting the first outer post (left leg of top core), the second outer post (right leg of top core), the center post (middle leg of top core) and the bottom plate (top portion of top core) have a same thickness (see Fig. 14(a), a thickness of left leg of top core, right leg of top core, and middle leg of top core are D7-D5 which is 10 and a thickness of top portion of top core is D7 which is 10 which is the same) in order to simplify design to reduce volume and cost to achieve desirable operating characteristics with enhanced efficiency and suppressed parasitic capacitance (Abstract, Introduction).
Applicant argues that the thickness of the first outer post, the second outer post, the center post and the bottom plate have been clearly defined and marked by Fig. 8B. However, what is marked by Fig. 8B is not specifically claimed in the independent claim 12.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., defining a thickness of the first outer post, a thickness of the second outer post, a thickness of the center post and a thickness of the bottom plate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights