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 § 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) 1, 5-7 and 9-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. [CN 111261392A or US 2021/0193368 A1] in view of Worthington [US 2013/0207767 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17, Dai et al. discloses a transformer comprising [figures 1-4]:
- a sequence of insulating layers [abstract, multilayered PCB] layered transversely of a common plane, and
- a plurality of at least two galvanically separated circuits [primary and secondary windings], each circuit comprising: at least one conductor winding, each conductor winding being disposed on a respective one of the layers extending parallel to the common plane, respectively, and a common magnetic core [abstract, core 11] only partially surrounding said layered sequence and acting on said number of at least two circuits, said core having a single core part [110] extending parallel to said common plane and bounding said layered sequence to one side.
Dai et al. discloses the instant claimed invention except for a shielding.
Worthington discloses a shielding surface [30, 30a] extending parallel to the common plane, the shielding surface arranged on at least one of layers of coil [figures 3A-3D].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a shielding surface in Dai et al., as suggested by Worthington, for the purpose improving shielding and inductive coupling.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-7 and 9-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma [US 2020/0243256 A1] in view of Worthington [US 2013/0207767 A1].
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17, Thoma discloses a transformer [figures 1-7] comprising:
- a sequence of insulating layers [figures 5, layers 560a-e] layered transversely to a common plane, and
- a plurality of at least two galvanically separated circuits, each circuit comprising: at least one conductor winding [figures 4-5, 510a, 510b], and
- a common magnetic core [E-type core 410, 570] only partially enclosing the layered sequence and acting on the plurality of at least two circuits, the core having a first core part extending parallel to the common plane and a plurality of legs extending therefrom [yoke part of the E-type core, figures 4-5], wherein through-openings [figure 3, 312a-c] are provided in the layered sequence and at least one leg extends transversely to the common plane at least partially through the through-openings [321a-c] and each conductor winding is arranged in each case running parallel to the common plane on in each case one of the layers around in each case at least one leg, no core part being provided on a side of the transformer opposite the first core part extending parallel to the common plane [figure 7].
Thoma discloses the instant claimed invention except for a shielding.
Worthington discloses a shielding surface [30, 30a] extending parallel to the common plane, the shielding surface arranged on at least one of layers of coil [figures 3A-3D].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a shielding surface in Thoma, as suggested by Worthington, for the purpose improving shielding and inductive coupling.
Regarding claim 3, Thoma discloses a transformer [figures 1-7] comprising:
- a layered sequence of insulating layers [figures 5, 560a-e] transverse to a common plane, and
- a plurality of at least two galvanically separated circuits [510a, 510b], each circuit comprising: at least one conductor winding, and
- a common magnetic core [E-type core 410, 570] only partially surrounding the layered sequence and acting on the plurality of at least two circuits, the core having a plurality of legs extending transverse to the common plane, each leg having a first and a second end face wherein only each first end is connected to a common core part extending parallel to the common plane [E-type core] and each second end is without connection to a further core part [figure 7], wherein through-openings [312a-c] are provided in the layered sequence and at least one leg extends at least partially through the through openings, and each conductor winding is arranged extending parallel to the common plane on a respective one of the layers around a respective at least one leg [figure 5, 560a-c].
Regarding claims 7, 9, 14-15 and 20-21, both Dai et al. and Thoma discloses at least one of the circuits [primary or secondary windings] comprises two conductor windings arranged in parallel on the same layer or on different layers within the layered sequence, the conductor windings of a common circuit are electrically conductively connected to one another via electrical connections [para 0051 of Dai et al. and figure 5 of Thoma].
Regarding claims 10, 16 and 22, both Dai et al. and Thoma discloses the transformer having at least one winding [primary or secondary] electrically coupled to an electronic circuit adapted to adjust the transmission behavior.
Regarding claims 5-6, 12-13 and 18-19, Worthington further discloses each shield surface is formed with through-openings aligned with the through-openings, wherein recesses are provided between the through-openings of each shield surface [figures 3A-3D].
The specific recesses/openings arrangement would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating manufacturing and/or assembling.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. or Thoma in view of Worthington, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Yang [US 2004/0145445 A1].
Regarding claims 23-25, Dai et al. or Thoma in view of Worthington disclose the instant claimed invention except for the side by side arrangement of the coils/windings.
Yang discloses a transformer structure [figures 3A-3C] comprising:
- a core structure [302a, 302b];
- a coil structure; and
- a plurality of coils [300a-300f] arranged/formed on a PCB [300], wherein the plurality of coils arranged side by side and not on top of each other on different layers [figures 3B-3C].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the coils/windings side by side arrangement of Yang in Dai et al. or Thoma, as modified, for the purpose of reducing cost and improving manufacturing and/or assembling [summary of the invention].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
[1] There is no suggestion or motivation to combine Dai et al. with Worthington because the core structure of Dai et al. is different than the core structure of Worthington;
[2] There is no suggestion or motivation to combine Thoma with Worthington.
The Examiner disagrees.
Regarding [1], in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Dai et al. and Worthington disclose a transformer with a coil structure arranged on layers and a common magnetic core. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to seek a shielding surface of Worthington for the transformer of Dai et al. for the purpose of improving shielding and/or inductive coupling. The Examiner only used Worthington for the shielding surface arrangement.
Regarding [2], in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Thoma and Worthington disclose a transformer with a coil structure having through-openings and core structure having core part that extend through the through-openings of the coil structure. A skilled artisan would been motivate to seek a shielding surface of Worthington for the transformer of Thoma for the purpose of improving shielding and/or inductive coupling. The Examiner only used Worthington for the shielding surface arrangement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1996. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
