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 .
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 13 and 20 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 13 recites the limitation "said first outer element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said second outer element" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said first outer element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said second outer element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moisseev [JP 2010-050160].
Regarding Claim 1, Moisseev shows a transformer (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a first conducting element (top element 20 with element 30) having a first lobed portion (top element 20) arranged to form a first plurality of lobes (21, 22); and
a second conducting element (bottom element 20) having a second lobed portion (bottom element 20) arranged to form a second plurality of lobes (23, 24);
wherein said first lobed portion (top element 20) overlaps said second lobed portion (bottom element 20) to define a plurality of enclosed areas (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, top element 20 overlaps bottom element 20 to define a plurality of enclosed areas).
Regarding Claim 2, Moisseev shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes (21, 22) are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 3, Moisseev shows each lobe of said first (21, 22) and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Moisseev shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (21, 22) is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (23, 24, see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 5, Moisseev shows the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (21, 22) is an even number (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 6, Moisseev shows said first conducting element (top element 20 with element 30) further comprises a first outer portion (outer portion of top element 20 at element T) connected at one end to a first end of said first lobed portion (end of element 22, see Figs. 1 and 4-5), and
said second conducting element (bottom element 20) further comprises a second outer portion (outer portion of bottom element 20 at element T) connected at one end to a first end of said second lobed portion (end of element 23, see Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding Claim 7, Moisseev shows said first outer portion (outer portion of top element 20 at element T) and said first lobed portion (top element 20) are arranged to form a first loop (21 or 22); and
said second outer portion (outer portion of bottom element 20 at element T) and said second lobed portion (bottom element 20) are arranged to form a second loop (23 or 24), said second loop at least partially overlapping said first loop (see Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding Claim 8, Moisseev shows at least a portion of said first outer portion (outer portion of top element 20 at element T) and/or said second outer portion (outer portion of bottom element 20 at element T) is substantially straight (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, outer portion of top element 20 at element T and/or outer portion of bottom element 20 at element T is substantially straight).
Regarding Claim 9, Moisseev shows said transformer is substantially symmetric (see Figs. 1-5, transformer is substantially symmetric; also see Figs. 1 and 4-5, element 20 of the transformer is substantially symmetric, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 10, Moisseev shows a second end of said first lobed portion (end of element 22 at element T) is connected to a second end of said second lobed portion (end of element 23 at element T).
Regarding Claim 13 (see 112 rejection above), Moisseev shows said first outer element (element 30) is further arranged to define a full turn (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, element 30 define a full turn) of the first conducting element (top element 20 with element 30), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Regarding Claim 16, Moisseev shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes (21, 22) are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 17, Moisseev shows each lobe of said first (21, 22) and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 18, Moisseev shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (21, 22) is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (23, 24, see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 19, Moisseev shows the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (21, 22) is an even number (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0026], [0034]).
Regarding Claim 20 (see 112 rejection above), Moisseev shows said first outer element (element 30) is further arranged to define a full turn (see Figs. 1 and 4-5, element 30 define a full turn) of the first conducting element (top element 20 with element 30), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murasaki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0093818].
Regarding Claim 1, Murasaki et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 1-4 and 7-11) comprising:
a first conducting element (element 22 with one line of element 30) having a first lobed portion (one line of element 30) arranged to form a first plurality of lobes (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11); and
a second conducting element (element 23 with another line of element 30) having a second lobed portion (another line of element 30) arranged to form a second plurality of lobes (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11);
wherein said first lobed portion (one line of element 30) overlaps said second lobed portion (another line of element 30) to define a plurality of enclosed areas (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11, one line of element 30 overlaps another line of element 30 to define a plurality of enclosed areas).
Regarding Claim 2, Murasaki et al. shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 3, Murasaki et al. shows each lobe of said first and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 4, Murasaki et al. shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 6, Murasaki et al. shows said first conducting element (element 22 with one line of element 30) further comprises a first outer portion (22) connected at one end to a first end of said first lobed portion (end of one line of element 30, see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11), and
said second conducting element (element 23 with another line of element 30) further comprises a second outer portion (23) connected at one end to a first end of said second lobed portion (end of another line of element 30, see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 7, Murasaki et al. shows said first outer portion (22) and said first lobed portion (one line of element 30) are arranged to form a first loop (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11); and
said second outer portion (23) and said second lobed portion (another line of element 30) are arranged to form a second loop (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11), said second loop at least partially overlapping said first loop (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 8, Murasaki et al. shows at least a portion of said first outer portion (22) and/or said second outer portion (23) is substantially straight (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11, element 22 and/or element 23 is substantially straight).
Regarding Claim 9, Murasaki et al. shows said transformer (elements 21, 24 can form a transformer) is substantially symmetric (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11, the transformer is substantially symmetric).
Regarding Claim 10, Murasaki et al. shows a second end of said first lobed portion (end of one line of element 30) is connected to a second end of said second lobed portion (end of another line of element 30, see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11, end of one line of element 30 is electrically connected to end of another line of element 30).
Regarding Claim 13 (see 112 rejection above), Murasaki et al. shows said first outer element (outer or inner turn of element 22) is further arranged to define a full turn (outer or inner turn of element 22 define a full turn, Paragraph [0035]) of the first conducting element (element 22 with one line of element 30), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Regarding Claim 14, Murasaki et al. shows said transformer (elements 21, 24 can form a transformer) is formed on a substrate (45, see Figs. 9-10).
Regarding Claim 16, Murasaki et al. shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 17, Murasaki et al. shows each lobe of said first and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 18, Murasaki et al. shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Regarding Claim 20 (see 112 rejection above), Murasaki et al. shows said first outer element (outer or inner turn of element 22) is further arranged to define a full turn (outer or inner turn of element 22 define a full turn, Paragraph [0035]) of the first conducting element (element 22 with one line of element 30), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji [U.S. Patent No. 8,576,037].
Regarding Claim 1, Ji shows a transformer (Figs. 1-3b) comprising:
a first conducting element (RD of element 32) having a first lobed portion (1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32 as shown in Fig. 2a) arranged to form a first plurality of lobes (see Fig. 2a); and
a second conducting element (GR of element 32) having a second lobed portion (1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32 as shown in Fig. 2a) arranged to form a second plurality of lobes (see Fig. 2a);
wherein said first lobed portion (1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32) overlaps said second lobed portion (1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32) to define a plurality of enclosed areas (see Fig. 2a, 1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32 overlaps 1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32 to define a plurality of enclosed areas).
Regarding Claim 2, Ji shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 3, Ji shows each lobe of said first and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 4, Ji shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (1 or 1.5 TWISTS for RD, GR of element 32, see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 5, Ji shows the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is an even number (1 TWIST for RD of element 32 would result in an even number such as 2 lobes, see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 6, Ji shows said first conducting element (RD of element 32) further comprises a first outer portion (outer portion of RD of element 32 at element 14) connected at one end to a first end of said first lobed portion (end of RD of element 32 at TWISTS, see Fig. 2a), and
said second conducting element (GR of element 32) further comprises a second outer portion (outer portion of GR of element 32 at element 14) connected at one end to a first end of said second lobed portion (end of GR of element 32 at TWISTS, see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 7, Ji shows said first outer portion (outer portion of RD of element 32 at element 14) and said first lobed portion (1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32) are arranged to form a first loop (see Fig. 2a); and
said second outer portion (outer portion of GR of element 32 at element 14) and said second lobed portion (1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32) are arranged to form a second loop (see Fig. 2a), said second loop at least partially overlapping said first loop (see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 8, Ji shows at least a portion of said first outer portion (outer portion of RD of element 32 at element 14) and/or said second outer portion (outer portion of GR of element 32 at element 14) is substantially straight (see Fig. 2a, outer portion of RD of element 32 at element 14 and/or outer portion of GR of element 32 at element 14 is substantially straight).
Regarding Claim 10, Ji shows a second end of said first lobed portion (end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32) is connected to a second end of said second lobed portion (end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32, see Fig. 2a, end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32 is electrically connected to end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32).
Regarding Claim 11, Ji shows said second end of said first lobed portion (end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32) and said second end of said second lobed portion (end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32) are connected to ground (end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of RD of element 32 and end of 1-1.5 TWISTS of GR of element 32 are electrically connected to ground, see Chart 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ji shows said transformer is an autotransformer (see Fig. 2a, Col. 4, Lines 30-50).
Regarding Claim 13 (see 112 rejection above), Ji shows said first outer element (top or bottom turn of RD of element 32) is further arranged to define a full turn (top or bottom turn of RD of element 32 define a full turn, Col. 4, Lines 3-16) of the first conducting element (RD of element 32), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Regarding Claim 14, Ji shows said transformer is formed on a substrate (60, Col. 3, Lines 1-10, claim 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Ji shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 17, Ji shows each lobe of said first and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 18, Ji shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (1 or 1.5 TWISTS for RD, GR of element 32, see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 19, Ji shows the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is an even number (1 TWIST for RD of element 32 would result in an even number such as 2 lobes, see Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 20 (see 112 rejection above), Ji shows said first outer element (top or bottom turn of RD of element 32) is further arranged to define a full turn (top or bottom turn of RD of element 32 define a full turn, Col. 4, Lines 3-16) of the first conducting element (RD of element 32), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0272875].
Regarding Claim 1, Huang et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 4A-6B) comprising:
a first conducting element (only element 150 or element 150 with element 130) having a first lobed portion (150) arranged to form a first plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 150); and
a second conducting element (160) having a second lobed portion (160) arranged to form a second plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 160);
wherein said first lobed portion (150) overlaps said second lobed portion (160) to define a plurality of enclosed areas (see Figs. 4A-6B, element 150 overlaps element 160 to define a plurality of enclosed areas).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang et al. shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 150) are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 3, Huang et al. shows each lobe of said first (eight lobes of element 150) and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 4, Huang et al. shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 150) is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 160, see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang et al. shows the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 150) is an even number (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang et al. shows said first conducting element (150) further comprises a first outer portion (152) connected at one end to a first end of said first lobed portion (end of element 151, see Figs. 4A-6B), and
said second conducting element (160) further comprises a second outer portion (162) connected at one end to a first end of said second lobed portion (end of element 161, see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang et al. shows said first outer portion (152) and said first lobed portion (150) are arranged to form a first loop (see Figs. 4A-6B); and
said second outer portion (162) and said second lobed portion (160) are arranged to form a second loop (see Figs. 4A-6B), said second loop at least partially overlapping said first loop (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang et al. shows at least a portion of said first outer portion (152) and/or said second outer portion (162) is substantially straight (see Figs. 4A-6B, element 152 and/or element 162 is substantially straight).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang et al. shows said transformer is substantially symmetric (transformer shown in Figs. 4B or 4A is substantially symmetric, Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang et al. shows a second end of said first lobed portion (end of element 150) is connected to a second end of said second lobed portion (end of element 160, see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 13 (see 112 rejection above), Huang et al. shows said first outer element (bottommost element 130) is further arranged to define a full turn (bottommost element 130 define a full turn) of the first conducting element (element 150 with element 130), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Regarding Claim 14, Huang et al. shows said transformer is formed on a substrate (7, see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Huang et al. shows successive lobes of the first plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 150) are formed by portions of the first conducting element arranged to wind in opposite senses (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 17, Huang et al. shows each lobe of said first (eight lobes of element 150) and/or second plurality of lobes comprises only a partial turn of the respective conducting element (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 18, Huang et al. shows a number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 150) is equal to a number of lobes comprised by said second plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 160, see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 19, Huang et al. shows the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes (eight lobes of element 150) is an even number (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Regarding Claim 20 (see 112 rejection above), Huang et al. shows said first outer element (bottommost element 130) is further arranged to define a full turn (bottommost element 130 define a full turn) of the first conducting element (element 150 with element 130), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murasaki et al.
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Murasaki et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is an even number.
However, having the number of lobes comprised by said first plurality of lobes is an even number would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to obtain desirable coupling and operating characteristics based on design requirements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev in view of Godoy et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0077919].
Regarding Claim 9, Moisseev shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Godoy et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting said transformer (54) is substantially symmetric (Paragraph [0041]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said transformer is substantially symmetric as taught by Godoy et al. for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev to simplify design to improve circuit performance (Paragraph [0041]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev in view of Yen et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0098500].
Regarding Claim 11, Moisseev shows said second end of said first lobed portion (end of element 22 at element T) and said second end of said second lobed portion (end of element 23 at element T) are connected (see Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Moisseev does not explicitly disclose connected to ground.
Yen et al. shows a transformer structure (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting second end of said first lobed portion (one end connected to element 221) and said second end of said second lobed portion (another end connected to element 221) are connected to ground (Paragraph [0022]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connected to ground as taught by Yen et al. for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev to simplify design to improve symmetry and inductance to achieve desirable operating characteristics and performance (Paragraphs [0006], [0022]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murasaki et al. in view of Bhagwat [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0145237].
Regarding Claim 11, Murasaki et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show said second end of said first lobed portion (end of one line of element 30) and said second end of said second lobed portion (end of another line of element 30) are connected (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-11).
Murasaki et al. does not explicitly disclose connected to ground.
Bhagwat shows a device (Figs. 1-8) teaching and suggesting connected to ground (see Figs. 1-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connected to ground as taught by Bhagwat for transformer as disclosed by Murasaki et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and performance (Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 12, Murasaki et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show said transformer is an autotransformer.
Bhagwat shows a device (Figs. 1-8) teaching and suggesting said transformer is an autotransformer (Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said transformer is an autotransformer as taught by Bhagwat for transformer as disclosed by Murasaki et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and performance (Paragraph [0013]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Chen et al. [U.S. Patent No. 6,870,457].
Regarding Claim 11, Huang et al. shows said second end of said first lobed portion (end of element 130) and said second end of said second lobed portion (end of element 140) are connected (see Figs. 4A-6B).
Huang et al. does not show connected to ground.
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose said second end of said first lobed portion (one end connected to element 26) and said second end of said second lobed portion (another end connected to element 26) are connected to ground (Col. 3, Lines 12-23).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connected to ground as taught by Chen et al. for transformer as disclosed by Huang et al. to simplify design to improve symmetry and inductance to achieve desirable operating characteristics and performance with decrease the design cost and layout circuit area (Col. 3, Lines 12-23).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev OR Huang et al. in view of Nussbaum [U.S. Patent No. 7,332,993].
Regarding Claim 12, Moisseev OR Huang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show said transformer is an autotransformer.
Nussbaum shows a transformer (Fig. 1 or Fig. 4) teaching and suggesting said transformer is an autotransformer (Col. 5, Lines 6-21 and Col. 11, Lines 43-48).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said transformer is an autotransformer as taught by Nussbaum for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev OR Huang et al. to a step-up or step-down function to achieve desirable operating characteristics and performance (Col. 5, Lines 6-21).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev OR Huang et al. in view of Suganuma et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0037405].
Regarding Claim 12, Moisseev OR Huang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show said transformer is an autotransformer.
Suganuma et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 6A-6B) teaching and suggesting said transformer is an autotransformer (Paragraphs [0103], [0110]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said transformer is an autotransformer as taught by Suganuma et al. for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev OR Huang et al. to obtain equal electrical potential for the primary and secondary windings to achieve desirable operating characteristics and performance (Paragraphs [0103], [0110]).
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev in view of Nussbaum [U.S. Patent No. 7,332,993].
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, Moisseev shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Nussbaum shows said first outer element (122) is further arranged to define a full turn (see Fig. 1A, Col. 6, Lines 6-13) of the first conducting element (see Fig. 1A), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said first outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the first conducting element, and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element as taught by Nussbaum for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev to achieve desirable inductance value.
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev in view of Fujii et al. [WO 2020/039787].
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, Moisseev shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Fujii et al. shows (Figs. 10-11) said first outer element (21 or 23) is further arranged to define a full turn (one turn, see English translation) of the first conducting element (see Figs. 10-11), and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said first outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the first conducting element, and/or said second outer element is further arranged to define a full turn of the second conducting element as taught by Fujii et al. for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev to achieve desirable inductance value.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev in view of Chen et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0191235] (hereinafter as “Chen ‘235”).
Regarding Claim 14, Moisseev shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show said transformer is formed on a substrate.
Chen ‘235 shows a transformer (Fig. 2A) teaching and suggesting said transformer is formed on a substrate (204).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said transformer is formed on a substrate as taught by Chen ‘235 for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability while forming electrical connection to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics and performance (Paragraph [0021]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. in view of Ishizuka [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0068166].
Regarding Claim 15, Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. shows a transformer according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejections above).
Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. does not show explicitly disclose a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer.
Ishizuka shows a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0045]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer as taught by Ishizuka for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. to achieve a high frequency circuit (Paragraph [0002]) where matching is able to be achieved over a wide band and inserion loss is able to be decreased (Paragraph [0069]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. in view of Beck et al. [WO 9302415].
Regarding Claim 15, Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. shows a transformer according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejections above).
Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. does not show explicitly disclose a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer.
Beck et al. shows a passive phase shifter (PHP) comprising a transformer (UT1, see Fig. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer as taught by Beck et al. for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. to achieve desired frequency and amplitude characteristics (see English translation).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. in view of Zhao et al. [CN 111510072].
Regarding Claim 15, Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. shows a transformer according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejections above).
Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. does not show explicitly disclose a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer.
Zhao et al. shows a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer (105, claim 3, see Fig. 1, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a passive phase shifter comprising a transformer as taught by Zhao et al. for transformer as disclosed by Moisseev OR Murasaki et al. OR Ji OR Huang et al. to achieve a high frequency circuit facilitating performance and high precision (Abstract, Advantage, see English translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837