SDETAILED 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 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Baumann does not teach “the central part being made from a lightweight material” as recited in claim 14. Applicant asserts that the lightweight material in the present invention is understood as materials having a density of less than 3.9 g/cm3 (last paragraph of page 2 of the originally filed specification). Applicant states that Baumann does not discuss the central part material. Applicant submits that the low weight in Baumann is achieved through form-complementary tank design, not through material selection for the central part.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. While claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the specification is not read into the claims. During patent examination, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Claim 14 does not define what’s “lightweight material” let alone the “density of less than 3.9 g/cm3 as disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, interpreting the “lightweight” as claimed as a material having “density of less than 3.9 g/ cm3” would be reading the specification into the claims, which is improper. Such interpretation is also the opposite of “broadest reasonable interpretation.” The term “lightweight” is a relative term that can be interpreted broadly, and under broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets the material used for the central part of Baumann as a material having “lightweight” since the fastener 18 can support the “central part” in addition to all other components of the electrical appliance 10. Therefore, the examiner maintains Baumann teaches “the central part being made from a lightweight material” as recited in claim 14.
Applicant also argues that Baumann does not teach a support frame as claimed in claim 16. Applicant asserts that Baumann only disclose fastening means 18.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive. In the present invention, support frame 33 has two longitudinal supports 34 and two transverse supports 35, as seen in FIG 1. Similarly, in Baumann, the electrical appliance 10 is supported by two fasteners 18 and two transverse supports 19, as shown in FIG. 2. Accordingly, Baumann teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Drawings objection is hereby withdrawn as a result of the explanation and the amendment filed on 12/19/2025.
Drawings
The drawings received on 12/19/2022 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-17, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumann et al. (WO 2018/184775 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Baumann et al., hereinafter referred to as “Baumann,” teaches an electrical appliance 10 (FIGs. 2-4) for connection to a high voltage (“connection to a high voltage” para. [0003]), the electrical appliance comprising:
an active part 22 (FIG. 3) having a magnetizable core 23 and a winding assembly 25 and or 26 enclosing a core portion 24 of said core, said winding assembly having windings (“windings” para. [0044]) that are inductively coupled to one another (para. [0046]); and
a tank 12 to be filled with an insulating fluid (para. [0041]) and completely enclosing said active part, said tank having two end casings 16 and 17 and a central part 14 and or 15 disposed between said end casings (para. [0044]);
said active part being mechanically connected to said tank only at said end casings, and said end casings being supported on a fastener 18 (para. [0044]); and
said central part being made from a lightweight material.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
707
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 14, wherein said fastener comprises a support frame (para. [0044]). The fastener 18 support the appliance. Therefore, the fastener 18 is proper to interpret as “support frame” as claimed.
With respect to claim 16, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 15, wherein said support frame has two longitudinal supports (two supports at left and right) and two transverse supports 19 extending between said longitudinal supports, and wherein each of said end casings is supported on a respective one of said transverse supports (para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 17, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 14, wherein said core has two mutually parallel core limbs 24 (para. [0047]) that are each enclosed by a winding assembly 25 and 26, and said core limbs are connected to one another by a lower yoke (“lower yoke” para. [0050]) and an upper yoke 29.
With respect to claim 23, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 14, wherein said end casings are box-shaped casings (para. [0009]).
With respect to claim 24, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 14, wherein said end casings have a shape that is complementary to a portion of said active part lying opposite thereof (para. [0009]).
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 18-20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Dierstein (U.S. Patent No. 3,011,139).
With respect to claim 18, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 17. Baumann does not expressly teach said lower yoke and said upper yoke are in each case connected to said lower and upper end casings by way of spacers, and wherein said spacers are disposed in an interior of the respective said end casing.
Dierstein teaches an electrical appliance (Fig. 5), wherein said lower yoke (bottom yoke) and said upper yoke (top yoke) are in each case connected to said lower and upper end casings 34 by way of spacers 2a (annotated Fig. 5), and wherein said spacers are disposed in an interior of the respective said end casing (col. 4, lines 51-55).
PNG
media_image3.png
632
493
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 spacer as taught by Dierstein to the electrical appliance of Baumann to provide the required insulation or isolation between different parts of the electrical appliance.
With respect to claim 19, Baumann in view of Dierstein teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 18, wherein each spacer is connected to a fastening plate 19 disposed outside the respective said end casing (Baumann, para. [0044]). The combination would result in the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 20, Baumann in view of Dierstein teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 19, wherein each fastening plate is connected to said fastener (Baumann, para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 25, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 14. Baumann does not expressly teach at least one of said end casings is formed with at least one of a viewing window or a hand opening.
Dierstein teaches an electrical appliance (Fig. 5), wherein at least one of said end casings 34 is formed with at least one of a viewing window 25 or a hand opening (col. 4, lines 57-49). 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 window as taught by Dierstein to the electrical appliance of Baumann to provide visual inspection capability of the integrity of the appliance components.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann, as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Hanov (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2017/0271070 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Baumann teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 14. Baumann does not expressly teach said end casings are formed of a metal or a metal alloy.
Hanov teaches an electrical appliance (FIG 1), wherein said end casings 12 and 12a (annotated FIG 1) are formed of a metal or a metal alloy (paras. [0034] and [0035]).
PNG
media_image4.png
493
429
media_image4.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 steel casings as taught by Hanov to the electrical appliance of Baumann to improve mechanical strength for stabilizing the magnetizable core (para. [0012]).
With respect to claim 22, Baumann in view of Hanov teaches the electrical appliance according to claim 21, wherein said end casings are formed of steel (Hanov, paras. [0034]-[0035]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stefanutti et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2017/0186524 A1) teaches the features of claim 16.
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