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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on01/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a single core having a central leg and two lateral legs connected to each other with end members, in which the central leg and the two lateral legs each comprises an air gap, the air gap of the central gap being smaller than the lateral legs air gaps” as recited in claim 29, the “the central gap is half as big as the lateral gaps” as claimed in claim 31, the “the central gap is four times smaller than the lateral gaps” of claim 32, the “planar windings printed on a substrate, or a combination thereof” as recited in claim 37, the “planar windings printed on the same substrate” as claimed in claim 38 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 39-44 are objected to because of the following informalities: .
Regarding claim 39, it appears “the electromagnetic device as defined in any of claim 29” should be --the electromagnetic device as defined in claim 29--.
Claims 40-44 are objected as being dependent on claim 39.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the same substrate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 41, it’s not clear what’s intended by “the current needed to drive the multiple inductors is reduced by implementing interleaved multi-phase operations” as recited in lines 1-3. The examiner does not know how to interpret the limitations in question properly.
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 29, 31, 37, 137 and 139 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0147541 A1).
With respect to claim 29, Shimada et al., hereinafter referred to as “Shimada,” teaches an electromagnetic device (FIG. 3) comprising:
(i) a single core 3 having a central leg 3c (annotated FIG. 3) and two lateral legs 3a and 3b connected to each other with end members 3d and 3e, in which the central leg and the two lateral legs each comprises an air gap 3c1, 341 and 342, the air gap of the central gap being smaller than the lateral legs air gaps;
(ii) two inductors (inductors of windings 301 and 302) having windings 301 and 302 arranged around one of the end members;
and in which the multiple inductors are configured to have a weak mutual coupling k where k is determined by selecting the ratio between the central gap and the two lateral gaps (paras. [0052]-[0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 31, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29, in which the device is configured such that reducing the central gap size reduces the coupling between the two inductors (para. [0053]).
With respect to claim 37, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29, in which in the windings of the inductors are either wire windings, planar windings printed on a substrate, or a combination thereof (para. [0052]).
With respect to claim 137, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29, in which the winding of the first inductor is arranged on a portion of the end member between the first lateral leg and the central leg, and the winding of the second inductor is arranged on a portion of the end member between the central leg and the second opposite lateral leg (para. [0052]).
With respect to claim 139, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29, in which the device is configured such that the magnetic energy of the flux path of the first inductor is substantially concentrated within the first lateral leg air gap and the magnetic energy of the flux path of the second inductor is substantially concentrated within the second opposite lateral leg air gap (paras. [0052]-[0053]).
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 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada, as applied to claim 29 above, in view of Kuo et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2014/0313002 A1).
With respect to claim 32, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29.
Shimada does not expressly teach the central gap is half as big as the lateral gaps even though the drawings reasonably disclose such features.
Nonetheless, Kuo et al., hereinafter referred to as “Kuo,” teaches an electromagnetic device 600 (Fig. 6A) in which the central gap g3 is half as big as the lateral gap 91 (para. [0044]).
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 gap sizes as taught by Kuo to the electromagnetic device of Shimada to adjust the inductance of the winding(s) (para. [0044]).
With respect to claim 33, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29.
Shimada does not expressly teach the central gap is four times smaller than the lateral gaps even though Shimada expressly teach different gap structure could be used (para. [0053]).
Kuo teaches an electromagnetic device 600 (Fig. 6A) in which different central gap and lateral gaps are used (paras. [0042] and [0044]). Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would use the gap as claimed to provide the desired magnetic characteristics to meet design requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the central gap is four times smaller than the lateral gaps, as would be obvious over Shimada in view of Kuo, to adjust the inductance of the winding.
Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada, as applied to claim 29 above, in view of Abe et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0221360 A1).
With respect to claim 34, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29. Shimada does not expressly teach the mutual coupling k is less than 0.5.
Abe et al., hereinafter referred to as “Abe,” teaches an electromagnetic device (FIG. 2) in which the mutual coupling k is less than 0.5 (para. [0055]). 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 mutual coupling k as taught by Abe to the electromagnetic device of Shimada to provide the desired mutual inductance between the windings to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 35, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29. Shimada does not expressly teach the mutual coupling k is less than 0.35.
Abe teaches an electromagnetic device (FIG. 2) in which the mutual coupling k is less than 0.35 (para. [0055]). 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 mutual coupling k as taught by Abe to the electromagnetic device of Shimada to provide the desired mutual inductance between the windings to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 36, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29. Shimada does not expressly teach the mutual coupling k is more than 0.5 and less than 0.95.
Abe teaches an electromagnetic device (FIG. 2) in which the mutual coupling k is more than 0.5 and less than 0.95 (para. [0055]). 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 mutual coupling k as taught by Abe to the electromagnetic device of Shimada to provide the desired mutual inductance between the windings to meet design requirements.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada, as applied to claim 29 above, in view of Xu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,671,713 B2).
With respect to claim 38, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29. Shimada does not expressly teach the windings of the inductors are planar windings printed on the same substrate.
Xu et al., hereinafter referred to as “Xu,” teaches an electromagnetic device (FIGs. 1-3) in which the windings 7 and 9 of the inductors are planar windings printed on the same substrate 3 (col. 3, lines 5-10). 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 planar windings on the same substrate as taught by Xu to the electromagnetic device of Shimada to facilitate manufacturing.
Claims 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahori et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2011/0026276 A1) in view of Shimada.
With respect to claim 39, Nakahori et al., hereinafter referred to as “Nakahori,” teaches a PFC converter (FIG. 36) comprising an electromagnetic device 8 (para. [0201]). Shimada does not expressly teach the electromagnetic device as defined in any of claim 29.
Shimada teaches a converter (FIGs. 4-5) as defined in in any of claim 29 (paras. [0052]-[0053] and [0060]). 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 electromagnetic device as taught by Shimada to the PFC converter of Shimada to provide the required magnetic saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 40, Nakahori in view of Shimada teaches the PFC converter of claim 39, in which the mutual coupling k is selected based on one or more of the following: parameters of the magnetic core, type of MOSFET, input voltage required, and output voltage required (Nakahori, para. [0201], Shimada, paras. [0052]-[0053] and [0060]).
With respect to claim 41, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Nakahori in view of Shimada teaches the PFC converter of claim 39, in which the current needed to drive the multiple inductors is reduced by implementing interleaved multi-phase operations.
With respect to claim 42, Nakahori in view of Shimada teaches the PFC converter of claim 39, in which the mutual coupling k is selected in order to minimize the global losses (Nakahori, para. [0219], Shimada, paras. [0052]-[0053] and [0060]).
With respect to claim 43, Nakahori in view of Shimada teaches the PFC converter of claim 39, in which the mutual coupling k is determined to be able to discharge the drain of the active MOSFET used in the PFC converter (Nakahori, para. [0219], Shimada, paras. [0052]-[0053] and [0060]).
With respect to claim 44, Nakahori in view of Shimada teaches the PFC converter of claim 39, in which k is less than 0.4 and the PFC achieves 99% efficiency with an output power of about 300 W (Nakahori, para. [0219], Shimada, paras. [0052]-[0053] and [0060]).
Claim 138 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada, as applied to claim 29 above, in view of Schultz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,362,986).
With respect to claim 138, Shimada teaches the electromagnetic device of claim 29. Shimada does not expressly teach the winding of the first inductor and the winding of the second inductor are wound in opposite directions.
Schultz et al., hereinafter referred to as “Schultz,” teach an electromagnetic device (FIG. 3A), in which the winding 42A of the first inductor and the winding 42B of the second inductor are wound in opposite directions (col. 7, lines 15-25). 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 winding directions as taught by Schultz to the electromagnetic device of Shimada to provide the desired flux density to meet design requirements (col. 7, lines 19-25).
Conclusion
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 PTO-892.
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