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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 19 and 20 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.
With respect to Requirement for Restriction/Election, applicant argues that “as shown in FIGs. 1-3 and 5” as stated by the examiner contradicts the examiner’s own allegation of mutually exclusive structure(s) by grouping together four of the allege species, and claim 8 is generic.
The argument is not persuasive. While some windings features may have similarities in one area of FIGs. 1-3 and 5, the windings also have different structures in other areas. For example, the windings in FIGs. 1-3 and 5 have different turns. Therefore, the Office actions are not contradicting each other. While claim 8 may read on either FIGs. 4 or 5, it does not read on the elected species I, FIG. 1, and applicant does not dispute that. Accordingly, claim 8 is NOT actually generic.
The examiner already stated that the different species have, inter alia, different winding arrangement in the Office action dated 11/06/2025.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection made in the Office action mailed on 02/06/2026 is hereby withdrawn as a result of the cancellation of the rejected claims.
The drawings objection made in the same Office action is hereby withdrawn as a result of the cancellation of the objected claims. However, a new drawings objection is made based on the amendment filed on 03/05/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “turn quantities of first windings of each n sub-transformer differs from turn quantities of all other n sub-transformers” as amended claim 1 and the “a largest turn quantity has five turns and a first winding with a smallest turn quantity has one turn” as recited in amended claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is objected to because it depends on a canceled claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0362885 A1) in view of Won et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2012/0223797 A1) and Hsu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,847,297 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Lu et al., hereinafter referred to as “Lu,” teaches a matrix transformer 12 (FIGs. 1A and 2 provided below for convenience), comprising:
n sub-transformers (first to third transformers Txa, Txb and Txc, n being 3, FIG. 1A) wherein n is an integer greater than 1, each of magnetic core columns 211-213 (FIG. 2) of the n sub-transformers is wound with first windings (primary windings Npa, Npb and Npc) and second windings (secondary windings Ns1a, Ns2a, Ns1b, Ns2b, Ns1c and Ns2c, para. [0057], not expressly shown in FIG. 2), the first windings are connected in series to form a high-voltage-side winding of the matrix transformer, and the second windings are connected in parallel to form a low-voltage-side winding of the matrix transformer;
a sum of turn quantities (total turns of primary windings Npa, Npb and Npc) of the first windings of the n sub-transformers is equal to a turn quantity design value of the high-voltage-side winding; and
a magnetic inductance ratio of the first windings of the n sub-transformers is equal to a turn quantity ratio of the first windings of the n sub-transformers (paras. [0017], [0048], [0057] and claim 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
286
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lu does not expressly teach turn quantities of first windings of each n sub-transformer differs from turn quantities of all other n sub-transformers.
Won et al., hereinafter referred to as “Won,” teaches a matrix transformer 100 (FIG. 1), wherein
turn quantities (three turns and 5 turns) of first windings 10 and 11 of each n sub-transformer differs from turn quantities (4.5 turns and 2.5 turns) of all other n sub-transformers (transformers formed by winding portions 10 and 20 and winding portions 11 and 21) (paras. [0050-0053]).
PNG
media_image3.png
377
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the turn quantities of the windings as taught by Won to the matrix transformer of Lu to reduce magnetic flux leakage outside (para. [0013]).
Lu does not also expressly teach a ratio of the turn quantity design value to n is not an integer.
Hsu et al., hereinafter referred to as “Hsu,” teaches a matrix transformer (FIGs. 3 and 7, FIG. 7 provided below for convenience) comprising:
a sum of turn quantities (17 turns, sum of “3 TURNS” on column 76, “4 TURNS” on column 70, “3 TURNS on column 74, “4 TURNS” on column 78 and “3 TURNS on column 72) of the first windings 102 of the n sub-transformers 50 is equal to a turn quantity design value of the high-voltage-side winding, a ratio (17:5, i.e. 17 turns: 5 columns) of the turn quantity design value to n is not an integer (17/5 is not an integer) (col. 5, lines 11-21).
PNG
media_image4.png
507
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio as taught by Hsu to the matrix transformer of Lu to provide a matrix transformer that supports odd turn ratio with optimized core geometry and that minimizes core losses (col. 2, lines 25-29).
With respect to claim 3, Lu in view of Won and Hsu teaches the matrix transformer according to claim 1, wherein the turn quantities of the first windings of the n sub-transformers range between one turn and five turns (Won, paras. [0050] and [0051]).
With respect to claim 4, Lu in view of Won and Hsu teaches the matrix transformer according to claim 3, wherein a first winding with a largest turn quantity has fiver turns (“N=5,” Won, para. [0051] and a first winding with a smallest turn quantity has one turn (Hsu, col. 5, lines 11-21).
With respect to claim 20, Lu in view of Won and Hsu teaches the matrix transformer according to claim 1. Lu in view of Won and Hsu does not expressly teach the turn quantity design value is 11. However, it would be within the skill of a person with ordinary skill in the art to change the design value to modify input electrical characteristics for certain applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have change the turn quality design value to 11 to provide the required input voltage to meet design requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Won and Hsu, as applied to claim 2 (interpreted as claim 1) above, and further in view of Shimada et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0147541 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Lu in view of Won and Hsu teaches the matrix transformer according to claim 2 (interpreted as claim 1). Lu in view of Won and Hsu does not expressly teach cross-sectional areas of the magnetic core columns of the n sub-transformers are equal, materials of the magnetic core columns are the same, and an air gap disposed in a magnetic core column of at least one of the n sub-transformers is different from air gaps disposed in magnetic core columns of the other sub- transformers.
Shimada et al., hereinafter referred to as “Shimada,” teaches a matrix transformer (FIG. 3), wherein cross-sectional areas of the magnetic core columns (legs) of the n sub-transformers are equal, materials of the magnetic core columns are the same, and an air gap (middle air gap of Shimada) disposed in a magnetic core column of at least one of the n sub-transformers is different from air gaps 341 and 342 disposed in magnetic core columns of the other sub-transformers (Hsu, para. [0061, Shimada, para. [0053]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the air gaps as taught by Shimada to the matrix transformer of Lu in view of Won and Hsu to provide the required magnetic saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Won and Hsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fe et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2018/0226182 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Lu in view of Won and Hsu teaches the matrix transformer according to claim 1. Lu in view of Won and Hsu does not expressly teach wherein, for the n sub- transformers, n=4.
Fe et al., hereinafter referred to as “Fe,” teaches a matrix transformer (Figure 2), wherein for the n sub-transformers, n=4 (para. [0029]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the n equals 4 sub-transformers as taught by Fe to the matrix transformer of Lu in view of Won and Hsu to reduce termination loss (paras. [0029]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837