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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species 1 (figures 1b-1d and claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 05/29/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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, a projection of the second concave portion along the extension direction of the first winding column at least partly overlaps the first concave portion 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 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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations ”… wherein the cover plate has a second concave portion, which concaves from a second side of the base plate towards the first winding column and the second winding column..” is vague and indefinite.
Para 0035-0038 of the applicant pgpubs teaches how the base plate has a first and third side and the cover plate has a second and fourth side. The examiner is unclear on how this statement since the cover plate teaches about having a second and fourth side. Is the applicant referring to the cover plate? For examing purposes the examiner will assume that the cover plate has a second side with a concave portion that’s overlapping the first concave portion.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations ”… a projection of the second concave portion along the extension direction of the first winding column at least partly overlaps the first concave portion..” is vague and indefinite. The examiner is unclear on what projection of the second concave portion is the applicant referring to? Where in the specification/drawings discuss a projection of the second concave portion along the extension direction of the first winding column at least partly overlaps the first concave portion? Claim 5 is rejected under the same premises as claim 2.
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.
1 Claims 1, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fushimi (US 20050068149).
Regarding claim 1, Fushimi (figures 1-12 and para 0042-0116) discloses a base plate (20), having a first concave portion (25); a cover plate (50), opposite to the base plate; a first winding column (24a) disposed between the base plate and the cover plate (see figure 1) and comprising a first air gap (see figure 12); a second winding column (24b) disposed between the base plate and the cover plate (see figure 1) and comprising a second air gap (see figure 12); a primary winding (70) wound around the first winding column and the second winding column (see para 0047-0060); a secondary winding (71), wound around the first winding column and the second winding column (see para 0047-0060); and a supporting column (21), disposed between the base plate and the cover plate (see figure 1); wherein the first concave portion concaves from a first side of the base plate towards the first winding column and the second winding column along multiple directions (see figure 1), and the primary winding and the secondary winding stack along an extension direction of the first winding column and the second winding column (see figures 10-12).
Regarding claim 6, Fushimi (figure 12) discloses wherein the supporting column does not have air gap, and neither the primary winding nor the secondary winding is wound around the supporting column.
Regarding claim 10, Fushimi (figures 9-10 and para 0043/0048-0049) discloses a masking layer (31b) disposed between the primary winding and the secondary winding.
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.
2 Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi (US 20050068149) in view of Tung et al. (US 20230282409).
Regarding claim 2, Fushimi (figure 1 and para 0042-0116) discloses wherein the cover plate (50) has a second concave portion (53), which concaves from a second side of the base plate towards the first winding column and the second winding column along multiple directions (see figure 1).
Fushimi does not expressly disclose a projection of the second concave portion along the extension direction of the first winding column at least partly overlaps the first concave portion.
Tung et al. (figure 2 and para 0036) discloses a teaching of a projection of the second concave portion along the extension direction of the first winding column at least partly overlaps the first concave portion.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein a projection of the second concave portion along the extension direction of the first winding column at least partly overlaps the first concave portion as taught by Tung et al.to the inductive device of Fushimi so as to better guide the magnetic field which will better confine the flux within the structure; thereby limiting magnetic flux leakage.
Regarding claim 5, Fushimi (figure 1 and para 0042-0116) discloses wherein the base plate (20) further comprises a third side opposite to the first side (see figure 1); the cover plate (50) has a fourth side opposite to the second side (see figure 1); the base plate has a third concave portion (see figure 1); which concaves from the third side of the base plate towards the first winding column and the second winding column along multiple directions (see figure 1); the cover plate has a fourth concave portion (53) (see figure 1); which concaves from the fourth side of the base plate towards the first winding column and the second winding column along multiple directions (see figure 1).
3 Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi (US 20050068149) in view of Yen et al. (US 20140375410).
Regarding claim 3, Fushimi (figure 1) discloses wherein a first distance from the first winding column to the first side and perpendicular to the first side is substantially greater than a second distance from the first winding column to an edge of the first concave portion and perpendicular to the first side (see figure 1).
Fushimi does not expressly disclose the second distance is less than a radius of the first winding column and/or the second winding column.
Yen et al. (figure 4 and para 0027) discloses a teaching wherein the second distance is less than a radius of the first winding column and/or the second winding column.(see para 0006/0027 disclosing how the second distance is very thin so as to reduce the size of the magnetic core)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to the second distance is less than a radius of the first winding column and/or the second winding column as taught by Yen et al. to the inductive device of Fushimi so as to make a more compact inductive device thereby by saving in valuable production cost in regards to time and materials needed to make the inductive device.
Regarding claim 4, Fushimi (figure 1) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a ratio of the first distance to the second distance is greater than or equivalent to 1 and is less than or equivalent to 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a ratio of the first distance to the second distance is greater than or equivalent to 1 and is less than or equivalent to 20, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such as to as to make a more compact inductive device thereby by saving in valuable production cost in regards to time and materials needed to make the inductive device
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
1. Claims 11-13 are allowed.
2. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship, wherein the primary winding has a first primary sub-winding and a second primary sub-winding; the secondary winding has a first secondary sub-winding, a second secondary sub-winding, a third secondary sub-winding and a fourth secondary sub-winding; the first primary sub-winding, the first secondary sub-winding and the second secondary sub-winding are wound around the first winding column; the first secondary sub-winding and the second secondary sub-winding are connected in parallel in opposite directions; the second primary sub-winding, the third secondary sub-winding and the fourth secondary sub-winding are wound around the second winding column; the third secondary sub-winding and the fourth secondary sub-winding are connected in parallel in opposite directions; a first rectifier switch, connecting the first secondary sub-winding and an output end; a second rectifier switch, connecting the third secondary sub-winding and the output end and connected in parallel with the first rectifier switch in opposite directions; a third rectifier switch, connecting the second secondary sub-winding and the output end; and a fourth rectifier switch, connecting the fourth secondary winding and the output end and connected in parallel with the third rectifier switch in opposite directions in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 11.
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Claims 12-13 are allowed because each claim is directly or indirectly dependent of independent claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights