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
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.
(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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. [TW 1792130 B].
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a capacitor-type network transformer (e.g., network of transformers 31, page 3 of translation, shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
a circuit board (e.g., 3, page 3, Fig. 1);
at least one a transformer member (e.g., 31) mounted to the circuit board (e.g., 3) comprising a transformer 31, a common-mode filter (e.g., 32, page 3, Fig. 1), and at least one capacitor (e.g., 33, page 3);
at least one peripheral element (e.g., network chip 30, LED 34, page 3, Fig. 1) mounted to the circuit board 3 to a side of the transformer member 31, and
a casing (e.g., 1, page 3, Fig. 1) configured on the circuit board 3 completely covering the at least one transformer member 31, and the at least one peripheral element (e.g., 30, 34).
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses wherein the transformer 31 is a chip-type transformer (page 3, Fig. 1).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Zhang [CN 202276028 U].
Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses the instant claimed invention discussed above except for wherein the at least one peripheral element is a current-limiting resistor or a Transient Voltage Suppressor (TVS) diode.
Zhang discloses at least one peripheral element is a Transient Voltage Suppressor (TVS) diode in a case 100 (e.g., 18, Paragraph 0047-0048, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one peripheral element is a Transient Voltage Suppressor (TVS) diode as taught by Zhang to the peripheral elements of Liang on the circuit board enclosed in a case to provide the network transformer device with protection component within an enclosure providing a compact structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSELITO SASIS BAISA whose telephone number is (571)272-7132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM to 4PM.
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.
/J.S.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837