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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 04/28/2023 and 12/29/2025 have been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9 and 16-20, without traverse in a response on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged. In this Office Action, claims 10-15 are withdrawn, and claims 1-9 and 16-20 are examined.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the phrase “the first limb segment”, is not well defined, since the phrase lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the phrase to mean “the first intermediate limb segment”.
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 1-7, 9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarver et al. (hereinafter Sarver), WIPO Patent WO2013012506A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Sarver teaches, a transformer core (Fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of lamination layers (“strip of grain-oriented silicon steel 109 is shown together with the cutting sequence of the strip 109 to define stacks” [0021]), at least one lamination layer of the plurality of lamination layers comprising:
a first side limb component (106);
a second side limb component (108);
an upper yoke component (102) disposed in between an upper end of the first side limb component and an upper end of the second side limb component (id.), the upper yoke component comprising one or more upper yoke segment (102a, 102b);
a lower yoke component (104) disposed in between a lower end of the first side limb component and a lower end of the second side limb component (id.), the lower yoke component comprising one or more lower yoke segments (104a, 104b); and
an intermediate limb component (110) comprising a first intermediate limb segment (left segment, Fig. 2) and a second intermediate limb segment (right segment, Fig. 2), wherein a first end of the intermediate limb component is disposed in between two consecutive upper yoke segments (id.) and a second end of the intermediate limb component is disposed in between two consecutive lower yoke segments (id.),
at least one of the upper yoke segment and the lower yoke segment being trapezoidal in structure (id.). (Sarver: Figs. 2-4, machine translation, para. [0020]-[0022], [0024], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2 and similarly claim 3-5, Sarver further teaches, wherein the upper yoke component comprises a plurality of upper yoke segments and the lower yoke component comprises a plurality of lower yoke segments (id.), wherein
a first diagonal edge (angle A) of each of the plurality of upper yoke segments makes a first upper yoke angle with a base of the corresponding upper yoke segment (id.), wherein the first upper yoke angle ranges between 55 degrees to 70 degrees (“end of stack #1 is cut at an angle A of 64 degrees” [0021]);
a second diagonal edge (angle B) of each of the plurality of upper yoke segments makes a second upper yoke angle with a base of the corresponding upper yoke segment, wherein the second upper yoke angle is a 45-degree angle (“the opposing end thereof is cut at an angle B of 45 degrees” [0021]);
a first diagonal edge (id.) of each of the plurality of lower yoke segments makes a first lower yoke angle with a base of the corresponding lower yoke segment, wherein the first lower yoke angle ranges between 55 degrees to 70 degrees (id.); and
a second diagonal edge (id.) of each of the plurality of lower yoke segments makes a second lower yoke angle with a base of the corresponding lower yoke segment, wherein the second lower yoke angle is a 45-degree angle (id.). (Sarver: Figs. 2-4, machine translation, para. [0021]).
Regarding Claim 6 and similarly claim 7, Sarver further teaches, wherein two consecutive lamination layers of the plurality of lamination layers are stacked with a predetermined offset between adjacent layers to form a step-lap joint (“[t]he difference in lengths within each group permits the formation of multi-step lap joints” [0022]). (Sarver: Figs. 2-4, machine translation, para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 9, Sarver further teaches, wherein the first slanting edge and the second slanting edge of the first intermediate limb segment makes a first intermediate angle and a second intermediate angle with the base of the first limb segment, respectively, wherein the first intermediate angle and the second intermediate angle ranges between 20 degrees to 35 degrees (“end of stack #1 is cut at an angle A of 64 degrees” [0021], thus the first and second intermediate angle comprises 26 degrees); and
the first slanting edge and the second slanting edge of the second intermediate limb segment makes a first intermediate angle and a second intermediate angle with the base of the second limb segment, respectively, wherein the first intermediate angle and the second intermediate angle ranges between 20 degrees to 35 degrees (id.). (Sarver: Figs. 2-4, machine translation, para. [0021]).
Regarding Claim 16, Sarver teaches, a transformer (Fig. 2) comprising:
a transformer core (100) comprising:
a plurality of lamination layers (“strip of grain-oriented silicon steel 109 is shown together with the cutting sequence of the strip 109 to define stacks” [0021]), at least one lamination layer of the plurality of lamination layers comprising:
a first side limb component (106);
a second side limb component (108);
an upper yoke component (102) disposed in between an upper end of the first side limb component and an upper end of the second side limb component (id.), the upper yoke component comprising one or more upper yoke segment (102a, 102b);
a lower yoke component (104) disposed in between a lower end of the first side limb component and a lower end of the second side limb component (id.), the lower yoke component comprising one or more lower yoke segments (104a, 104b); and
an intermediate limb component (110) comprising a first intermediate limb segment (left segment, Fig. 2) and a second intermediate limb segment (right segment, Fig. 2), wherein a first end of the intermediate limb component is disposed in between two consecutive upper yoke segments (id.) and a second end of the intermediate limb component is disposed in between two consecutive lower yoke segments (id.),
at least one of the upper yoke segment and the lower yoke segment being trapezoidal in structure (id.); and
a plurality of windings (111) wound on the transformer core (id.). (Sarver: Figs. 2-4, machine translation, para. [0020]-[0022], [0024], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 17 and similarly claims 18-20, Sarver further teaches, wherein the upper yoke component comprises a plurality of upper yoke segments and the lower yoke component comprises a plurality of lower yoke segments (id.), wherein
a first diagonal edge (angle A) of each of the plurality of upper yoke segments makes a first upper yoke angle with a base of the corresponding upper yoke segment (id.), wherein the first upper yoke angle ranges between 55 degrees to 70 degrees (“end of stack #1 is cut at an angle A of 64 degrees” [0021]);
a second diagonal edge (angle B) of each of the plurality of upper yoke segments makes a second upper yoke angle with a base of the corresponding upper yoke segment, wherein the second upper yoke angle is a 45-degree angle (“the opposing end thereof is cut at an angle B of 45 degrees” [0021]);
a first diagonal edge (id.) of each of the plurality of lower yoke segments makes a first lower yoke angle with a base of the corresponding lower yoke segment, wherein the first lower yoke angle ranges between 55 degrees to 70 degrees (id.); and
a second diagonal edge (id.) of each of the plurality of lower yoke segments makes a second lower yoke angle with a base of the corresponding lower yoke segment, wherein the second lower yoke angle is a 45-degree angle (id.). (Sarver: Figs. 2-4, machine translation, para. [0021]).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarver, as applied to claim 1, in view of Pauley et al., (hereinafter Pauley), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0010813.
Regarding Claim 8, Sarver teaches, intermediate limb segments including lamination layers and successive lamination layer of similar widths. (Sarver: Figs. 2-4, machine translation, para. [0020]-[0022], [0024], [0025).
Yamada does not explicitly teach, wherein widths of the first intermediate limb segment and the second intermediate limb segment of the intermediate limb component of a lamination layer are respectively different from widths of a successive first intermediate limb segment and a successive second intermediate limb segment of the intermediate limb component of a successive lamination layer.
However, Pauley (Fig. 7) teaches, wherein widths of the first intermediate limb segment (88) and the second intermediate limb segment (92) of the intermediate limb component of a lamination layer are respectively different from widths (id.) of a successive first intermediate limb segment and a successive second intermediate limb segment of the intermediate limb component of a successive lamination layer (id.). (Pauley: Figs. 1-7, para. [0034], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermediate limb segment of Yamada to include the lamination layer comprising different widths of successive lamination layers of Pauley, the motivation being “a core leg having a cruciform cross-section provides more surface area for supporting a coil” [0003]. (Pauley: Figs. 1-7, para. [0003]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 8 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McLeod (US 4521957) discloses lengths of a first and second lower yoke segment of a lamination layer different from lengths of successive lamination layer.
Sarver et al. (US 20130147588).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM BARNES whose telephone number is (408)918-7512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (PST).
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 on 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.
/MALCOLM BARNES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights