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 § 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)(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, 3, 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FRIEDRICH et al. [WO 2013/182227 A1].
Regarding claim 1, FRIEDRICH et al. discloses a power transformer having a noise reduction function, comprising:
- a transformer housing [figure 1] including a sidewall [figure 3], an accommodating space surrounded by the sidewall, and at least one hollow reinforcing structure [16], wherein the sidewall includes an inner wall [5] and an outer wall [2, figure 3], a vacuum layer [7] is formed between the inner wall and the outer wall by sealing and evacuation, and the at least one hollow reinforcing structure is disposed on the outer wall of the sidewall [figures 1 and 3]; and
- an electromagnetic assembly [active part 10] disposed in the accommodating space and including an iron core and a coil structure disposed on the iron core.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, FRIEDRICH et al. discloses the at least one hollow reinforcing structure is filled with an anti-vibration material such as air. FRIEDRICH et al. further discloses the at least one hollow reinforcing structure includes a first hollow reinforcing structure [16] and a second hollow reinforcing structure [16] that are disposed one above the other and spaced apart from each other, and the first hollow reinforcing structure and the second hollow reinforcing structure are each filled with the anti-vibration material such as air, wherein the at least one hollow reinforcing structure surrounds the sidewall of the transformer housing [figure 1].
Regarding claim 9, FRIEDRICH et al. discloses an electrical insulating liquid [24] is present in the accommodating space of the transformer housing, and the electromagnetic assembly is immersed in the electrical insulating liquid. Oil is a known fluid/liquid material use in a liquid/fluid filled transformer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRIEDRICH et al. in view of Matthews [US 1,846,887].
Regarding claim 7, FRIEDRICH et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific of the transformer [active part 10].
Matthews discloses a transformer [figures 1-2] comprising:
- a housing [figures 1-2];
- a transformer disposed in the housing, the transformer including a coil/core structure, wherein the coil/core structure including a core with a plurality of limb portions and coil structure with a plurality of coils wound around the limb portions [figures 1-2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the coil/core structure for the transformer [active part 10] of FRIEDRICH et al., as suggested by Matthews for the purpose of providing and/or using multiphase transformer.
Claim(s) 8 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRIEDRICH et al. in view of Specht et al. [US 3,260,974].
Regarding claim 8, FRIEDRICH et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for fastening members.
Specht et al. discloses a transformer [figure 2] comprising:
- a tank [28, 86];
- a coil/core assembly [32, 34] disposed inside the tank;
- oil [162] filled the tank and the coil/core assembly; and
- a plurality of fastening members [35, 95] configured to join together the core and coil assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include fastening members into FRIEDRICH et al., as suggested by Specht et al., for the purpose of providing fastening for the coil/core assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Specht et al. further discloses the tank including a plurality of hollow reinforcing structures [30, 31, 100, 104, 106] for the tank, wherein one of the hollow reinforcing structures filled with sand [108].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fill the hollow reinforcing structure of FRIEDRICH et al. with sand particles, as suggested by Specht et al., for the purpose of improving vibration.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRIEDRICH et al. in view of Zheng [CN 207409348 U].
Regarding claim 10, FRIEDRICH et al. discloses the instant claimed invention except for an oil [liquid/fluid] storage tank.
Zheng discloses the use of an oil storage tank or reservoir [17] in communication with a transformer structure arranged inside a housing [15] filled with oil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an oil/fluid/liquid storage tank in FRIEDRICH et al., as suggested by Zheng for the purpose of providing oil/fluid/liquid for the transformer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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.
/TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
