NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/022,191, entitled TIE PLATE FOR A TRANSFORMER CORE ASSEMBLY.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected.
I. REQUEST FOR CONTINED EXAMINATION
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §1.17(e), was filed in this application on April 30, 2026 after the Final rejection mailed February 24, 2026 (hereinafter the “2026 Final”). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. §1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous 2026 Final has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.114. Applicant's amendment filed April 15, 2026 (hereinafter the “Apr 2026 Amendment”) has been entered.
II. CLAIMS STATUS
In the Apr 2026 Amendment, claims 1, 2 and 12 were amended, claims 3-11 and 14-20 were unchanged and claim 13 was cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending and will be examined.
III. 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.
IV. CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because these claims depend from a cancelled claim, i.e., claim 13. Appropriate correction is required. Examiners find claims 16 and 17 should depend from claim 12 and will be interpreted as such for purposes of this Office action only.
V. 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).
VI. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended to recite the tie plates are made from high manganese steel. Claims 3 and 14 recites the tie plates are made from austenitic steel. However, the specification does not provide support for the tie plates to be made from both these materials. As noted in several places in the specification, “[t]he non-magnetic composition may be high manganese steel or austenitic steel.” See e.g., page 5, line 4. The specification also states on page 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
124
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, for claims 3 and 14 to now recite the tie plates are made of both high manganese steel and austenitic steel lacks a written description and is new matter.
VII. 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.
VII.A. Obviousness Rejection Applying Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over EP3667687 to Stefan Seidel (hereinafter “Seidel”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,753,187 to George Seitanakis (hereinafter “Seitanakis”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/019048 to Subhas Sarkar (hereinafter “Sarkar”).
Regarding claim 1, Seidel teaches:
1. A transformer core assembly, comprising:
See Seidel FIG. 1, reprinted below.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Seidel FIG. 1
a first yoke clamping plate for clamping a first yoke of a transformer core;
See Seidel FIG. 1 above, first yoke 7 having an upper yoke clamping plate 5.
a second yoke clamping plate for clamping a second yoke of the transformer core; and
See Seidel ¶0023 wherein there is another frame 17 provided at the lower end of the transformer core 8. Thus, again see Seidel FIG. 1 above, note a second yoke 7 would be at the bottom side of the core 8 and would also have a second yoke clamping plate 5.
a plurality of stacked sheets forming a tie plate, the non-magnetic 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 Seidel FIG. 1 above and FIG. 4, reprinted below, illustrating the stack sheets forming a tie plate 20, which has a first end connected to the first yoke clamping plate 5 and the second yoke clamping plate 5 (at the lower side of core 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
680
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Seidel FIG. 4
However, Seidel does not explicitly teach the material for the tie plates 20. 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 use the high Manganese steel alloy as taught by Seitanakis for the tie plates of Seidel. Such an application of the teachings of Seitanakis would imply that the tie bars/stacked sheets 20 of Seidel would have the high Manganese steel alloy as taught by Seitanakis. 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 Seidel 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, such a combination is predictable in view of Sarkar which further teaches that the material for tie plates 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.
Regarding claim 2, Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 and further:
2. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets are composed of high manganese steel has a manganese content between 20 % by mass and 30 % by mass.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. Further see Seitanakis Abstract and col. 2, lines 6-20 which teaches a housing/casing for a transformer comprising a high Manganese steel alloy comprising between 25-26% Manganese.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 and further:
4. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets have a thickness between 0.5 mm and 6 mm.
5. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the non-magnetic tie plate has a thickness between 10 mm and 20 mm.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. Regarding these claims, Examiners find that Seidel, Seitanakis 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 Seidel in view of Seitanakis and Sarkar, having the relative dimensions, would not perform differently than the claimed dimension. Accordingly, the transformer of Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar reads on the relative dimensions of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 6, Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 and further:
6. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets are connected to each other by a plurality of welding spots and/or a plurality of bolts.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. See further Seidel ¶0033 wherein tie bar 20 is connected together via “a single weld on pad 26 connects the individual tie plates 25 to each other.”
Regarding claim 12, Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 and similar in combination teach:
12. A non-magnetic tie plate for use with a transformer core assembly, the non-magnetic tie plate comprising a plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets composed of high manganese steel.
See combination proposed for claim 1.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the tie plate of claim 13 (or claim 12, see objection above) and further:
16. The non-magnetic tie plate of claim 13 (12), wherein the high manganese steel has a manganese content between 20 % by mass and 30 % by mass.
17. The non-magnetic tie plate of claim 13 (12), wherein the high manganese steel has a manganese content between 21 % by mass and 28 % by mass.
Note combination proposed for claims 1 and 12 above. Further see Seitanakis Abstract and col. 2, lines 6-20 which teaches a housing/casing for a transformer comprising a high Manganese steel alloy comprising between 25-26% Manganese.
Regarding claim 19, Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the tie plate of claim 12 and further:
19. (Previously Presented) The non-magnetic tie plate of claim 12, 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.
Note combination proposed for claims 1 and 12 above. Further see Seidel FIGS. 1 and 4 above, tie plates 20 have first and second ends. Further note claim is directed to “the non-magnetic tie plate” and thus the remainder of this claim recites an intended use of the tie plates, i.e., for use with and connection to some structures (transformer core assembly) outside the scope of the tie plate, and thus are not further limiting of the tie plate. Thus, since Seidel teaches the tie plate structures, it reads on the intended use thereof.
Nevertheless, Seidel also explicitly teaches the intended use wherein as shown in FIGS. 1 and 4 of Seidel above, the tie plates 20 are connected between first and second yoke clamping plates 5.
Regarding claim 20, Seidel, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the tie plate of claim 12 and further:
20. (Previously Presented) The non-magnetic tie plate of claim 12, wherein the transformer core assembly comprises a limb, wherein a winding is wound around the limb, and wherein the non-magnetic 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 non- magnetic tie plate may extend substantially parallel to said limb axis.
Examiner again notes this claim is directed to “the non-magnetic tie plate” and thus the remainder of this claim recites an intended use of the tie plates, i.e., “for use with” some structures (transformer core assembly) outside the scope of the tie plate, and thus are not further limiting of the tie plate. Thus, since Seidel teaches the tie plate structures, it reads on the intended use thereof.
Nevertheless, Seidel also explicitly teaches the intended use wherein as shown in FIGS. 1 and 4 of Seidel above, the tie plates 20 are for use with the transformer structures shown.
VII.A. Obviousness Rejection Applying McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar
Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,349,357 to W.J. McNutt et al. (hereinafter “McNutt”) in view of Seitanakis and Sarkar.
Regarding claim 1, McNutt teaches:
1. A transformer core assembly, comprising:
See McNutt FIG. 1, reprinted below, illustrating a transformer assembly
PNG
media_image4.png
508
558
media_image4.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_image5.png
234
376
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
516
288
media_image6.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 tie plates 18/21. 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 use the high Manganese steel alloy as taught by Seitanakis for the tie plates of McNutt. Such an application of the teachings of Seitanakis would imply that the tie bars 18/21 of McNutt would have the high Manganese steel alloy as taught by Seitanakis. 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, such a combination is predictable in view of Sarkar which further teaches that the material for tie plates 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.
Regarding claim 2, McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 and further:
2. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets are composed of high manganese steel has a manganese content between 20 % by mass and 30 % by mass.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. Further see Seitanakis Abstract and col. 2, lines 6-20 which teaches a housing/casing for a transformer comprising a high Manganese steel alloy comprising between 25-26% Manganese.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 and further:
4. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets have a thickness between 0.5 mm and 6 mm.
5. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the non-magnetic tie plate has a thickness between 10 mm and 20 mm.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. Regarding these claims, Examiners find that McNutt, Seitanakis 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 in view of Seitanakis and Sarkar, having the relative dimensions, would not perform differently than the claimed dimension. Accordingly, the transformer of McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar reads on the relative dimensions of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 6, McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
6. The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets are connected to each other by a plurality of welding spots and/or a plurality of bolts.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. 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, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
7. (Previously Presented) The transformer core assembly of claim 1, 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.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. 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, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 7 as evidenced above and further wherein
8. (Previously Presented) The transformer core assembly of claim 7, 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 non-magnetic tie plate.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. 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, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 7 as evidence above and further wherein
9. (Previously Presented) The transformer core assembly of claim 7, wherein the plurality of holes is laser beam cut, or water jet cut, or machined.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. 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, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
10. (Previously Presented) The transformer core assembly of claim 1, wherein the non-magnetic tie plate comprises at least one slot.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. See McNutt FIGS. 1, 6 and 7 above, note each tie plate comprising a slot down the middle thereof.
Regarding claim 11, McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 as evidenced above and further wherein
11. (Previously Presented) The transformer core assembly of claim 1, 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.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. 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, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 1 and similarly in combination teach:
12. A non-magnetic tie plate for use with a transformer core assembly, the non-magnetic tie plate comprising a plurality of stacked non-magnetic sheets composed of high manganese steel.
See combination proposed for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the assembly of claim 12 as evidenced above and further wherein
15. (Previously Presented) The non-magnetic tie plate of claim 12, 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.
Note combination proposed for claim 1 above. 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 claims 16 and 17, McNutt, Seitanakis and Sarkar teach the tie plate of claim 13 (or claim 12, see objection above) and further:
16. The non-magnetic tie plate of claim 13 (12), wherein the high manganese steel has a manganese content between 20 % by mass and 30 % by mass.
17. The non-magnetic tie plate of claim 13 (12), wherein the high manganese steel has a manganese content between 21 % by mass and 28 % by mass.
Note combination proposed for claims 1 and 12 above. Further see Seitanakis Abstract and col. 2, lines 6-20 which teaches a housing/casing for a transformer comprising a high Manganese steel alloy comprising between 25-26% Manganese.
Regarding claim 18, McNutt, Seitanakis 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.
Note combination proposed for claims 1 and 12 above. 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, Seitanakis 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.
Note combination proposed for claims 1 and 12 above. Further see McNutt FIG. 1 above and FIGS. 6 and 7, reprinted above, showing the tie plate comprising plates, 30, 18, 31 and 21. Further note claim is directed to “the non-magnetic tie plate” and thus the remainder of this claim recites an intended use of the tie plates, i.e., for use with and connection to some structures (transformer core assembly) outside the scope of the tie plate, and thus are not further limiting of the tie plate. Thus, since Seidel teaches the tie plate structures, it reads on the intended use thereof.
Nevertheless, 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, Seitanakis 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.
Note combination proposed for claims 1 and 12 above. Examiner again notes this claim is directed to “the non-magnetic tie plate” and thus the remainder of this claim recites an intended use of the tie plates, i.e., “for use with” some structures (transformer core assembly) outside the scope of the tie plate, and thus are not further limiting of the tie plate. Thus, since Seidel teaches the tie plate structures, it reads on the intended use thereof.
Nevertheless, 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.
VIII. EXAMINER’S RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
On page 6 of the Apr 2026 Amendment, Applicant argues that “simply substituting magnetic steel with non-magnetic steel has several disadvantages that would not be addressed by the proposed combination absent additional modification not taught by either reference.” Applicant then cites ¶0011 of the specification that states some disadvantages of using non-magnetic steel. While Examiner acknowledges these arguments, Examiner does not find them persuasive to overcome the proposed combination. Examiners do not find a requirement that the prior art must address any disadvantage asserted by the Applicant. Rather the test for obvious is what the references would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Examiner finds both Seidel and McNutt teach the generally claimed structures of the transformer, except for the material of the tie bars and the housing. Sarkar suggests that a variety of materials for the tie plates, including steel, wood etc. and can be magnetic or non-magnetic. Finally, Seitanakis teaches using high manganese steel in transformer housings and reasons for doing so. This combination of teachings reads on the claims, regardless of any disadvantages that may or may not exist. Any choice of materials would have advantages and disadvantages.
Furthermore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument is an attempt to assert that the Applicant’s own specification teaches away from the combination. However, Examiner does not find any reference, including the Applicant’s specification, amounts to an attempt to “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”
On page 7 of the Apr 2026 Amendment, Applicant further argues that the sheets “composed of high-manganese steel, produces unexpected beneficial results that would not be realized without undue experimentation.” Examiners disagree as the prior art cited in this action teaches the use of such high-manganese steel in the context of transformers. Thus, Applicant’s invention was within the general knowledge of a person having ordinary skill and the results was predictable.
IX. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights