FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/207,754, entitled TRANSFORMER INDUCTORS WITH TUNABLE COUPLING COEFFICIENT.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 are rejected.
I. STATUE OF APPLICATION AND CLAIMS
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed June 17, 2026 (hereinafter the “June 2026 Amendment”), filed in response to the non-final Office action mailed March 19, 2026. In the June 2026 Amendment, claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-20 were amended, claim 7 was not changed, claims 6 and 14 were cancelled and new claims 21-22 were added. Therefore claims, 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 are pending.
Following a review of the amendments to the claims in the June 2026 Amendment, the prior art rejections are withdrawn in favor of new grounds of rejection provided below. Examiner submits such new grounds are necessitated by the amendments.
II. CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because they depend from cancelled claims, i.e., cancelled claims 6and 14, respectively. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of this action, Examiner will assume claim 7 depends from claim 1 and claim 15 depends from claim 9.
III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiner further finds that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner concludes that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiner’s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
Interpretation provided in this action:
The apparatus claims have been amended to now recite the following claim phrase:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiners first submit that following a careful review of the specification, Examiner is unable to find a disclosure of the structures of the control device, rather at most the drawings merely illustrate the control device as merely a box (See FIG. 4, reprinted below, boxes 429 and 435). The specification further states at ¶0032 that
PNG
media_image2.png
422
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of application
“first control device 429 and second control device 435 can be combined into a single control device.” Thus, Examiner finds the control device is either one or two blank boxes, with no detail discloses therein and thus a reasonable interpretation is that the controller is merely “something” that causes selection of the appropriate capacitors.
Furthermore, the functions recited in the claim phrase quoted above, i.e., the “adjusting of impedance” to causes other properties to occur is accomplished in the specification and drawings by simply selecting the number of capacitors in a capacitor bank to change the impedance of the capacitor circuit. Specifically, as provided in the specification at ¶¶0032-0034, by selecting, i.e., including or excluding capacitors, adjustment of the impedance and that of the coupling coefficient are changed. Examiners find no other way contemplated within the specification for changing the magnetic coupling of the of the inductors, i.e., the only way the circuit characteristics are change is by changing the capacitance of the capacitor circuit. For example, as stated in ¶0034, “as capacitance values increase further, the impedance of circuit 106 can change to the point that the magnetic coupling Km is reduced.” Thus, Examiners find the “adjusting” or “tuning” of the circuits to achieve the various properties discussed in the specification is only performed by including or excluding capacitors (changing the capacitance) of the capacitors.
In view of these forgoing findings from the specification, Examiner finds the quoted phrase above provides no detail of the structure of the control device, whether it is a single box or two boxes. Furthermore, Examiner finds the functions recited in the quoted phrase are merely a product of changing the capacitance of the capacitors, i.e., by including or excluding capacitors in the capacitor circuit/bank, wherein, if more capacitors are selected/included, then the circuit capacitances increases and the magnetic coupling decreases and vice versa. Examiner will interpret this quoted phrase in this manner for apparatus claims 1-6, 7-13, 15, 16, 21 and 22 and will similarly interpret method claims 17-20. Examiners further submit this interpretation reasonable since is taken directly from the specification.
IV. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
IV.A. Obviousness Rejections Applying Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0145439 to Jorge Grilo et al., published on July 29, 2004 (hereinafter “Grilo”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0134954 to Ivan Uzunov et al., published on May 28, 2009 (hereinafter “Uzunov”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,825,715 to Jody Greenberg (hereinafter “Greenberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Grilo discloses:
1. A circuit, comprising:
See Grilo FIGS. 5 and 6, reprinted below illustrating transformer circuits.
PNG
media_image3.png
420
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
338
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Grilo FIG. 5 Grilo FIG. 6
a first inductor having a first terminal and a second terminal;
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, first inductor 508 having first terminal 520A and second terminal 520B.
a second inductor having a third terminal and a fourth terminal, wherein the first and third terminals have a same polarity;
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, second inductor 512 having third terminal 524A and fourth terminal 524B. See also ¶¶0051 wherein the frequency compensation networks 530 and 534 are connected between terminal of opposite polarity. This implies first terminal 520A and third terminal 524A have the same polarity and the second terminal 520B and the fourth terminal 524B have the same polarity.
a first capacitor circuit cross-coupled to the first terminal and the fourth terminal; and
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, note frequency compensation circuit 534 is embodied as a compensation capacitor 608, which is connected between the first terminal 520A and the fourth terminal 524B. Further see Grilo ¶604 wherein “the capacitance values may assume any value and may be arrived at by calculation or experimentation” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art will be able to determine appropriate capacitance values to add to the transformer based on desired bandwidth specifications.”
a second capacitor circuit cross-coupled to the second terminal and the third terminal,
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, note frequency compensation circuit 530 is embodied as a compensation capacitor 604, which is connected between the second terminal 520B and the third terminal 524A. Further see Grilo ¶604 wherein “the capacitance values may assume any value and may be arrived at by calculation or experimentation” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art will be able to determine appropriate capacitance values to add to the transformer based on desired bandwidth specifications.”
Examiners thus find Grilo teaches the features noted above and further that the capacitance values can be changed or selected to achieve a desired result for the transformer. However, Grilo does not teaches the capacitors being tunable. Nevertheless, Uzunov at FIG. 4A and ¶0035 teaches using adjustable capacitors connected within transformer structures and “”[t]o achieve adjustability, each of the capacitors (448, 450, 452, 454, 456, 460) could be implemented as a bank of capacitors, where control switches selectively couple and decouple capacitors within a given bank to adjust the capacitance of the capacitor. Thus, the greater the number of capacitors coupled together, the greater the effective capacitance of the capacitor.” It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to use the capacitor bank as taught in Uzunov for the capacitor/frequency compensation network of Grilo. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so as noted in Uzunov, such adjustability is desired within transformers and further the capacitor bank allows for adjusting the capacitor circuit/netorok via the selection of appropriate capacitors in the bank. See quoted Uzunov above. Furthermore, such a modification is predictable in view of Grilo which states “[t]he first compensation network 530 and the second compensation network 534 may comprise any type device, assembly, circuit, apparatus, or system configured to modify one or more of the inductance, capacitance, impedance, or the like between any of the terminals of the transformer.” See Grilo ¶0050. Finally, such modification is predictable because Grilo contemplates changing the capacitance by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the ”capacitance” as contemplated by Grilo.
In view of this proposed combination of Grilo and Roberts, these references in combination teach:
a control device configured to adjust an impedance of one or more of the first and second tunable capacitor circuits to decrease a rate of change of an electrical coupling component differently from a rate of change of a magnetic coupling component between the first and second inductors as a function of frequency.
See Uzunov ¶0035 that control switches selectively couple the capacitors. Thus, a control device is specifically contemplated to “selectively” open or close switches in the tunable capacitor circuit of Uzunov to modify the inclusion or exclusion of capacitors. To the extent a control circuit is not explicitly shown, Greenberg teaches precisely a tunable capacitor circuit which is controlled by a switch controller/control circuit (See Greenberg FIG. 1, capacitor bank shown with control circuit/switch controller 150. It would have thus been obvious, if needed, to further provide a control circuit as taught by Greenberg in connection with the capacitor bank of Grilo and Uzunov. One having ordinary skill the art would do so to allow for such selective control of capacitors in the capacitor bank.
Furthermore, the “configured” functions of the control circuit are merely properties of the appropriate inclusion or exclusion of capacitors in the capacitor bank as discussed in the claim interpretation section above. As provided in the proposed combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg, the combination is merely the inclusion of the capacitor banks for the capacitors 604 and 608 of Grilo under the control of a control circuit of Greenberg to allow for changing the capacitance thereof as contemplated by Grilo, by selectively including or excluding capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency.
Regarding claim 2, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 1 as provided above and further:
2. The circuit of claim 1, wherein the control device is further configured to concurrently adjust capacitance values of the first and second tunable capacitor circuits.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1 and 3. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors.
Regarding claim 3, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 1 as provided above and further:
3. The circuit of claim 1, wherein the first tunable capacitor circuit comprises a first plurality of capacitors, and wherein the second tunable capacitor circuit comprises a second plurality of capacitors.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1 and 3. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors.
Regarding claim 4, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 1 as provided above and further:
4. The circuit of claim 3, wherein the control device is further configured to select one or more capacitors of the first and second plurality of capacitors, respectively, to cause the circuit to operate as a notch filter.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1 and 3. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement, i.e., a notch filter. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors. Further note since this combination teaches the same structures, the combination would be “configured” to operate in a similar manner, i.e., as a notch filter.
Regarding claim 5, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 3 as provided above and further:
5. The circuit of claim 3, wherein the control device is further configured to close a circuit connection to one or more capacitors of the first and second plurality of capacitors to decrease the rate of change of the electrical coupling differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component between the first and second inductors over a frequency range.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1 and 3. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency.
Regarding claim 7, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 6 (assumed from claim 1) as provided above and further:
7. The circuit of claim 6 (claim 1), wherein the frequency range is between about 30 GHz and about 50 GHz.
Note combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg proposed above. Further see Grilo ¶0011. Finally, since this combination teaches the structures of the claim, it meets the “configuration” claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 3 as provided above and further:
8. The circuit of claim 3, wherein the control device is further configured to select one or more capacitors of the first and second plurality of capacitors to adjust the electrical coupling while maintaining a substantially constant magnetic coupling between.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1 and 3. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement, i.e., a notch filter. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors. Further note since this combination teaches the same structures and operates in the same manner, by simply selecting the one or more capacitors, the combination would be “configured” to operate in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 9, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg discloses the circuit of claim 1 as provided above and further:
9. A system, comprising:
See Grilo FIGS. 5 and 6 above.
a first voltage source having a first positive terminal and a first negative terminal; a primary winding coupled to the first positive terminal and the first negative terminal;
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, first inductor 508 having first terminal 520A and second terminal 520B. See also ¶¶0051 wherein the frequency compensation networks 530 and 534 are connected between terminal of opposite polarity, which would imply that the first inductor 508 is connected to positive and negative terminals.
a second voltage source having a second positive terminal and a second negative terminal; a secondary winding coupled to the second positive terminal and the second negative terminal;
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, second inductor 512 having third terminal 524A and fourth terminal 524B. See also ¶¶0051 wherein the frequency compensation networks 530 and 534 are connected between terminal of opposite polarity. This implies first terminal 520A and third terminal 524A have the same polarity and the second terminal 520B and the fourth terminal 524B have the same polarity, which would imply that the second inductor 512 is connected to positive and negative terminals.
a first tunable capacitor circuit cross-coupled to the first positive terminal and the second negative terminal; and
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, note frequency compensation circuit 534 is embodied as a compensation capacitor 608, which is connected between the first terminal 520A and the fourth terminal 524B. Further note Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance of Grilo by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank.
a second tunable capacitor circuit cross-coupled to the second positive terminal and the first negative terminal.
See FIGS. 5 and 6 above, note frequency compensation circuit 530 is embodied as a compensation capacitor 604, which is connected between the second terminal 520B and the third terminal 524A. Further note Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance of Grilo by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank.
a control device configured to adjust an impedance of one or more of the first and second tunable capacitor circuits to decrease a rate of change of an electrical coupling component differently from a rate of change of a magnetic coupling component between the first and second windings as a function of frequency.
Note combination proposed above for claim 1. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors.
Furthermore, the “configured” functions of the control circuit are merely properties of the appropriate inclusion or exclusion of capacitors in the capacitor bank as discussed in the claim interpretation section above. As provided in the proposed combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg, the combination is merely the inclusion of the capacitor banks for the capacitors 604 and 608 of Grilo under the control of a control circuit of Greenberg to allow for changing the capacitance thereof as contemplated by Grilo, by selectively including or excluding capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency.
Regarding claim 10, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the system of claim 9 and further wherein
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the control device is further configured to adjust capacitance values of the first and second tunable capacitor circuits in unison.
Note combinations proposed for claims 1 and 9 above. See Grilo ¶0051 wherein “[t]he compensation networks 530, 534 may be identically configured or configured differently.”
Regarding claim 11, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the system of claim 9 and further wherein:
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the first tunable capacitor circuit comprises a first plurality of capacitors, and wherein the second tunable capacitor circuit comprises a second plurality of capacitors.
Note combinations proposed for claims 1 and 9 above. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors.
Regarding claim 12, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the system of claim 11 and further wherein:
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the control circuit is further configured to select one or more of the first and second plurality of capacitors to operate as a notch filter.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1, 9 and 11. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement, i.e., a notch filter. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors. Further note since this combination teaches the same structures, the combination would be “configured” to operate in a similar manner, i.e., as a notch filter.
Regarding claim 13, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the system of claim 11 and further wherein:
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the control circuit is further configured to close a circuit connection to one or more capacitors of the first and second plurality of capacitors to decrease the rate of change of an electrical coupling differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component between the primary and secondary windings over a frequency range.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1, 9 and 11. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency.
Furthermore, the “configured” functions of the control circuit are merely properties of the appropriate inclusion or exclusion of capacitors in the capacitor bank as discussed in the claim interpretation section above. As provided in the proposed combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg, the combination is merely the inclusion of the capacitor banks for the capacitors 604 and 608 of Grilo under the control of a control circuit of Greenberg to allow for changing the capacitance thereof as contemplated by Grilo, by selectively including or excluding capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency.
Regarding claim 15, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 14 (assumed from claim 9) as provided above and further:
15. The system of claim 14 (claim 9), wherein the frequency range is between about 30 GHz and about 50 GHz.
Note combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg proposed above. Further see Grilo ¶0011. Finally, since this combination teaches the structures of the claim, it meets the “configuration” claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the system of claim 14 and further wherein:
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the control device is further configured to select one or more capacitors of the first and second plurality of capacitors to adjust an electrical coupling while maintaining the substantially constant magnetic coupling.
Note combination proposed above for claims 1, 9 and 11. As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency.
Furthermore, the “configured” functions of the control circuit are merely properties of the appropriate inclusion or exclusion of capacitors in the capacitor bank as discussed in the claim interpretation section above. As provided in the proposed combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg, the combination is merely the inclusion of the capacitor banks for the capacitors 604 and 608 of Grilo under the control of a control circuit of Greenberg to allow for changing the capacitance thereof as contemplated by Grilo, by selectively including or excluding capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency.
Regarding claim 17, the proposed combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 9 above, and would further teach the method of:
17. A method, comprising:
See Grilo FIGS. 5 and 6 and disclosure related thereto for operation of the circuit shown.
generating an oscillating signal at a first wire coil; transferring energy from the first wire coil to a second wire coil; and
See Grilo FIGS. 5 and 6, note transformer shown wherein an oscillating signal is provided to the primary/first wire coil 508 and is transferred to the secondary/second wire coil 512 through ordinary operation of the transformer shown.
adjusting a coupling between the first wire coil and the second wire coil, wherein the adjusting comprises:
decreasing a rate of change of an electrical coupling component differently from a rate of change of a magnetic coupling component between the first and second wire coils as a function of frequency by adjusting a capacitance value of a first tunable capacitor circuit cross-coupled to a positive terminal of the first wire coil and a negative terminal of the second wire coil; and
decreasing the rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of a magnetic coupling component between the first and second wire coils as a function of frequency by adjusting a capacitance value of a second tunable capacitor circuit cross-coupled to a negative terminal of the first wire coil and a positive terminal of the second wire coil.
Note structures and operations of the combination of Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg proposed above for claims 1 and 9. In Grilo, Examiner notes this adjustment is based on the presence of frequency compensation networks (530, 534)/capacitors (604, 608) shown in FIGS. 5 and 6 above. Further see FIGS. 5 and 6 above, note frequency compensation circuit 534 is embodied as a compensation capacitor 608, which is connected between the first terminal 520A and the fourth terminal 524B. Finally, see FIGS. 5 and 6 above, note frequency compensation circuit 530 is embodied as a compensation capacitor 604, which is connected between the second terminal 520B and the third terminal 524A.
As provided above, Grilo teaches changing the capacitance of the first and second capacitors by appropriate “calculation or experimentation” to achieve a desired bandwidth enhancement. Furthermore, as provided above, Uzunov teaches precisely modifying the capacitance by selection of capacitors in a capacitor bank. Finally, as provided above, Greenberg teaches the use of control device for the selection of the capacitors. In the same manner as in the present application, increasing/decreasing the number of capacitors would increase a rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component as a function of frequency. Thus, this combination teaches the decreasing steps of claim 17 by simple selection or de-selection of the capacitors in the proposed combination.
Regarding claim 18, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the method of claim 17 and further wherein:
18. The method of claim 17, wherein adjusting the capacitance values of the first and second capacitor tunable circuits comprises selecting one or more capacitors of the first and second capacitor circuits.
Note combination proposed for claims 1, 9 and 17 above.
Regarding claim 19, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the method of claim 18 and further wherein:
19. The method of claim 18, wherein selecting the one or more capacitors comprises increasing a capacitance of the first and second capacitor circuits to decrease a rate of change of an electrical coupling between the first wire coil and the second wire coil over a frequency range.
Note discussion above for claims 1, 9, 17 and 18. Further note Grilo modifies the capacitance to modify bandwidth.
Regarding claim 20, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the method of claim 18 and further wherein:
20. The method of claim 18, wherein selecting the one or more capacitors comprises increasing a capacitance of the first and second tunable capacitor circuits to substantially flatten the rate of change of the coupling between the first and the second coils over a frequency range.
Note discussion above for claims 1, 9, 17 and 18. Further note Grilo modifies the capacitance to modify bandwidth.
Regarding claim 21, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the circuit of claim 1 and further wherein:
21. The circuit of claim 1, wherein the control device is further configured to increase a capacitance of one or more of the first or second tunable capacitor circuits to decrease the rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component between the first and second inductors as a function of frequency.
Note discussion above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Grilo, Uzunov and Greenberg teach the system of claim 9 and further wherein:
22. The system of claim 9, wherein the control device is further configured to increase a capacitance of one or more of the first or second tunable capacitor circuits to decrease the rate of change of the electrical coupling component differently from the rate of change of the magnetic coupling component between the primary and secondary windings as a function of frequency.
Note discussion above for claim 9.
V. EXAMINER’S RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Examiner has fully considered the applicant’s arguments provided in the June 2026 Amendment. However, Examiner finds they are generally moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
With relevance to the arguments, Examiners find Applicant is generally arguing the Grilo’s disclosure does not disclose or teach the various functions recited in the claims, i.e., the modification of the coupling components. While Examiners agree that Grilo does not explicitly use the terminology as the specification, Examiners nevertheless, find Grilo is performing the same functions based on the similarity of structures and operations.
For example, Applicant does not dispute that Grilo discloses the same general transformer structures with capacitors connected in the same places as required in the claims and shown in FIG. 4 of the present specification. Thus, the dispute lies in the functionality of the same general structures.
As discussed above in the claim interpretation section, the only way that Applicant in the specification adjusts or modifies the coupling components to achieve the various properties of the transformer is by changing the capacitance of the capacitors. Furthermore, Grilo discloses modifying or changing the capacitance to achieve bandwidth enhancement. Thus, Examiners find Grilo is performing the same adjustment on the same general structures as contemplated in the specification, and thus Examiners submit would be performing the same properties, i.e., adjustment of the coupling components. To find otherwise would raise an issue as to the operability of the Applicant’s own invention.
As noted in the rejections above, the only difference between Grilo and the claims is the use of a capacitor bank for capacitance adjustment, rather than preselection of the capacitors as suggested in Grilo. However, such capacitor banks and their control are well known in the art as taught by Uzunov and Greenberg for capacitance adjustment.
VI. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
VII. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 are rejected.
Applicant's substantial amendments provided in the June 2026 Amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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.
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-9900.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights