FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/022,191, entitled TIE PLATE FOR A TRANSFORMER CORE ASSEMBLY.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
I. STATUS OF APPLCIATION
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed February 16, 2026 (hereinafter the “Feb 2026 Amendment”) have been entered and have been fully considered. In the Feb 2026 Amendment, claims 1-8 and 10-20 were amended and claim 9 was not changed with respect to previous versions of the claim. Thus, claims 1-20 remaining pending in this application.
In view of the Feb 2026 Amendment, particularly the substantial amendments to the claims, all previous objections and rejections are withdrawn in view of the new grounds provided in this Final Office action.
II. PRIORITY
Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s claim that this application is a 35 U.S.C. §371 of PCT/EP2021/078101, filed October 12, 2021, which claims priority to European Patent Office application EP20210766.0, filed November 30, 2020.
III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find that they are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiners are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiners conclude that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiners further find that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
IV. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. 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.
IV.A. Obviousness Rejections Applying McNutt and Sarkar
Claims 1, 4-12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. 3,349,357 to W.J. McNutt et al. (hereinafter “McNutt”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/019048 to Subhas Sarkar (hereinafter “Sarkar”).
Regarding claim 1, McNutt teaches:
1. A transformer core assembly, comprising:
See McNutt FIG. 1, reprinted below, illustrating a transformer assembly
PNG
media_image1.png
508
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McNutt FIG. 1
a first yoke clamping plate for clamping a first yoke of a transformer core;
See McNutt FIG. 1 above, first yoke clamping plates 10a/10b on a top side of the transformer core for clamping the top yoke section 4.
a second yoke clamping plate for clamping a second yoke of the transformer core; and
See McNutt FIG. 1 above, second yoke clamping plates 11a/11b on a bottom side of the transformer core for clamping the bottom yoke section 5.
a plurality of stacked sheets forming a tie plate, the tie plate having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is connected to the first yoke clamping plate and the second end is connected to the second yoke clamping plate.
See McNutt FIG. 1 above and FIGS. 6 and 7, reprinted below wherein the tie
PNG
media_image2.png
234
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
516
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
McNutt FIG. 6 McNutt FIG. 7
plate comprising sheets, 18 and 21 which are connected to the first yoke clamping plate 10a and the second yoke clamping plate 11a as shown in FIG. 1 above.
However, McNutt does not explicitly teach the material for the sheets. Nevertheless, Sarkar teaches a transformer clamp bracket, i.e., tie plate, for holding up to the forces of the transformer. See Sarkar ¶0014. Sarkar further teaches that the material for the clamp bracket/tie plate can be constructed from “a non-conducting material” and further can be wood “or another non-conductive and/or non-magnetically-permeable material.” See Sarkar ¶¶0016-0017. Furthermore, Sarkar teaches the material for such clamp brackets/tie plates are “typically made from steel” and can further be “other materials, like other metals, plastics, and organic or inorganic composites.” See Sarkar ¶0002 and ¶0014. It would thus have been obvious at the time the invention was made to make the tie plates and further the overall tie plate assembly of McNutt to be non-conductive and/or non-magnetic as taught by Sarkar. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted above, McNutt does not explicitly disclose the material for its tie plate assembly and thus one having ordinary skill would look to other similar tie plates for teachings regarding the material therefor. Furthermore, Sarkar teaches precisely the type of material for such tie plates in transformers, which are typically made from steel, or other non-magnetic materials, and can be as simple as wood. One having or ordinary skill in the art would make such a combination to provide “a material that is sufficiently strong to hold up to the forces inside the transformer,” to “reduce or eliminate the electrical clearances,” and to reduce eddy current in the clamp bracket/tie plate. See Sarkar ¶¶0014-0017.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 5, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets have a thickness between 0.5 mm and 6 mm and
the non-magnetic tie plate has a thickness between 10 mm and 20 mm.
Regarding these claims, Examiners find that McNutt and Sarkar teach all the structural limitations of claim 1. However, Examiners do not find that the combination discloses or discusses the precise relative dimensions of the transformer assembly or its components. Nevertheless, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144(IV)(A). Based on this rationale, Examiners find that claims 4 and 5 consists of limitations directly solely to relative dimensions. Examiners further find that the tie bars of McNutt made from non-magnetic material as taught by Sarkar, having the relative dimensions, would not perform differently than the claimed dimension. Accordingly, the transformer of McNutt reads on the relative dimensions of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 6, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
the plurality of non-magnetically stacked sheets are connected to each other by a plurality of welding spots and/or a plurality of bolts.
See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note stacked assembly of sheets 30, 18, 31 and 21 are connected together via bolts 23.
Regarding claim 7, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
the non-magnetic tie plate includes a plurality of holes configured for positioning an attachment member, for attaching the non-magnetic tie plate to the first and second yoke clamping plates and/or for attaching the plurality of sheets to one another for forming the non-magnetic tie plate.
See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note each tie plate comprising layers 30, 18, 31 and 21 has plurality of holes for positioning an attachment member, i.e., bolts 23, for attaching the tie plate to the yoke clamping plates 10a and 11a.
Regarding claim 8, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 7 as evidenced above and further wherein
the non-magnetic tie plate is elongate, extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the holes are formed in a series along the longitudinal axis of the tie plate.
See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note each tie plate comprising layers 30, 18, 31 and 21 has plurality of holes, of which two are in series at each end of the tie plate.
Regarding claim 9, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 7 as evidence above and further wherein
the plurality of holes is laser beam cut, or water jet cut, or machined.
See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note each tie plate comprising layers 30, 18, 31 and 21 has plurality of holes, which would necessarily be made one of the noted processes. Furthermore, Examiners find claim 9 is merely a product-by-process limitation, i.e., claim 9 is a product claim directed to the tie plate and the limitation is directed to the process of making it. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since McNutt otherwise discloses the structures of the tie plate, its tie plate reads on claim 9, regardless of the manner to which it is made.
Regarding claim 10, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
The non-magnetic tie plate comprises at least one slot.
See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note each tie plate comprising a slot down the middle thereof.
Regarding claim 11, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
the non-magnetic tie plate has a width between 20 mm and 80 mm, and/or a length between 1 m and 5 m.
Regarding these claims, Examiners find that McNutt and Sarkar teach all the structural limitations of claim 1. However, Examiners do not find that the combination discloses or discusses the precise relative dimensions of the transformer assembly or its components. Nevertheless, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144(IV)(A). Based on this rationale, Examiners find that claim 11 consists of limitations directly solely to relative dimensions. Examiners further find that the tie bars of McNutt made from non-magnetic material as taught by Sarkar, having the relative dimensions, would not perform differently than the claimed dimension. Accordingly, the transformer of McNutt reads on the relative dimensions of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, McNutt and Sarkar teach
12. A tie plate for use with a transformer core assembly, the tie plate comprising a plurality of non-magnetic stacked sheets.
See discussion above for claim 1 for combination of McNutt and Sarkar. Thus, see McNutt FIG. 1 above and FIGS. 6 and 7, reprinted below, showing a tie plate comprising sheets 30, 18, 31 and 21. Furthermore, in view of the teachings of Sarkar, the sheets are non-magnetic.
Regarding claim 15, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 12 as evidenced above and further wherein
The non-magnetic tie plate includes a plurality of holes configured for positioning an attachment member for attaching the non-magnetic tie plate to a first yoke clamping plate and a second yoke clamping plate and/or for attaching the plurality of sheets to one another for forming the non-magnetic tie plate.
See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note each tie plate comprising layers 30, 18, 31 and 21 has plurality of holes for positioning an attachment member, i.e., bolts 23, for attaching the tie plate to the yoke clamping plates 10a and 11a.
Regarding claim 18, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 12 as evidenced above and further wherein
The non-magnetic tie plate is elongate, extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the holes are formed in a series along the longitudinal axis of the tie plate.
See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note each tie plate comprising layers 30, 18, 31 and 21 has plurality of holes, of which two are in series at each end of the tie plate.
Regarding claim 19, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 12 as evidenced above and further wherein
the non-magnetic tie plate has a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is connected to a first yoke clamping plate of the transformer core assembly and the second end is connected to a second yoke clamping plate of the transformer core assembly.
See McNutt FIG. 1 above and FIGS. 6 and 7, reprinted above, showing the tie plate comprising plates, 30, 18, 31 and 21 which are connected to the first yoke clamping plate 10a and the second yoke clamping plate 11a as shown in FIG. 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, McNutt and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 12 as evidenced above and further wherein
the transformer core assembly comprises a limb, wherein a winding is wound around the limb, and wherein the non-magentic tie plate is positioned at least partly between the limb and the winding, and wherein the limb may be elongate, extending along a longitudinal axis, and wherein the tie plate may extend substantially parallel to said limb axis.
See McNutt FIG. 1, reprinted above, note core legs/limbs 1, 2 and 3, on which tie plates 15 comprising sheets 30, 18, 31 and 21 are provided, and the tie plates 15 are positioned between the core legs/limbs 1, 2 and 3 and winding wrapped therearound shown in phantom in FIG. 1.
V.B. Obviousness Rejection Applying McNutt, Sarkar and Seitanakis
Claims 2, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over McNutt and Sarkar, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,753,187 to George Seitanakis (hereinafter “Seitanakis”). Regarding these claims, Examiners find that McNutt teaches a general casing for the transformer comprising the yoke clamping plates 10a, 10b, 11a and 11b and further tie bars 15 for housing the transformer. Furthermore, Sarkar teaches using non-magnetic materials for the tie bars. However, this combination does not specifically teach using Manganese steel for the tie bar. Nevertheless, Seitanakis teaches a housing/casing for a transformer comprising a high Manganese steel alloy comprising between 25-26% Manganese. See Seitanakis Abstract and col. 2, lines 6-20. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to uses the high Manganese steel alloy as taught by Seitanakis for the housing/casing of McNutt, specifically for the yoke clamping members and the tie bars. Such an application of the teachings of Seitanakis would imply that the reinforcing plate layer of the tie bar of McNutt would have the high Manganese steel alloy as taught by Seitanakis, which reads on claims 2, 13, 16 and 17. One having ordinary skill in the art would make such modification, or simply using the steel alloy as taught by Seitanakis in the transformer of McNutt in order to “provide transformers contained within reliable nonmagnetic steel casing materials” and to “not become excessively heated during operation of the transformer.” See Seitanakis col. 1, lines 5-64. Furthermore, Sarkar suggests the combinability and further the predictability of such a combination by noting the desirability of using non-magnetic materials for the tie plate, of which Manganese steel is such a non-magnetic material.
V.C. Obviousness Rejection Applying McNutt, Sarkar and Nishi
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over McNutt and Sarkar, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0033536 to Kouji Nishi et al. (hereinafter “Nishi”). Regarding these claims, Examiners find that McNutt teaches a general casing for the transformer comprising the yoke clamping plates 10a, 10b, 11a and 11b and further tie bars 15 for housing the transformer. Furthermore, Sarkar teaches using non-magnetic materials for the tie bars. However, this combination does not specifically teach using austenitic steel for the tie bar. Nevertheless, Nishi teaches a known non-magnetic material for use in transformer plate connection member is austenitic stainless steel. See Nishi ¶0048. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to uses the non-magnetic austenitic stainless steel alloy as taught by Nishi for the tie plates of McNutt, specifically for the yoke clamping members and the tie bars. Such an application of the teachings of Nishi would imply that the tie plates of the tie bar of McNutt would be austenitic stainless steel as taught by Nishi, which reads on claims 3 and 14. One having ordinary skill in the art would make such modification, or simply using the austenitic stainless steel in the tie bars of McNutt to provide a material that is not affected by the magnetic fields of the transformer and further provides excellent thermal conductivity. See Nishi ¶0048. Furthermore, Sarkar suggests the combinability and further the predictability of such a combination by noting the desirability of using non-magnetic materials for tie plates, of which austenitic stainless steel is such a non-magnetic material.
V. EXAMINER’S RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments provided in the Feb 2026 Amendment. However, the arguments are generally moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
VI. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant's substantial amendments to the claims provided in the Feb 2026 Amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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 KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Fischer can be reached at (5712726779. 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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992