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 without traverse of Species V in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fei et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0366647].
Regarding Claim 1, Fei et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 5B), comprising:
a first primary winding layer (element P at element 570e);
a second primary winding layer (element P at element 570d), disposed adjacent to the first primary winding layer (see Fig. 5B);
a shielding layer (element X2 at element 570f), disposed adjacent to the first primary winding layer (see Fig. 5B);
a first secondary winding layer (element S4 at element 570g), disposed adjacent to the shielding layer (see Fig. 5B); and
a second secondary winding layer (element S3 at element 570h), disposed adjacent to the first secondary winding layer (see Fig. 5B),
wherein the first primary winding layer (element P at element 570e) and the second primary winding layer (element P at element 570d) are located at one side (top side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 5B), and the first secondary winding layer (element S4 at element 570g) and the second secondary winding layer (element S3 at element 570h) are located at another side (bottom side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 5B).
Regarding Claim 2, Fei et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5B, a distance between element P at element 570e and element X2 at element 570f is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 4, Fei et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5B, a distance between element S4 at element 570g and element X2 at element 570f is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 9, Fei et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 5B), comprising:
a shielding layer (element X2 at element 570f);
a first primary winding layer (element P at element 570e), located at one side (top side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 5B);
a first secondary winding layer (element S4 at element 570g), located at another side (bottom side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 5B);
a second primary winding layer (element P at element 570d), located one side (top side) of the first primary winding layer (element P at element 570e) opposite to the shielding layer (see Fig. 5B); and
a second secondary winding layer (element S3 at element 570h), located one side (bottom side) of the first secondary winding layer (element S4 at element 570g) opposite to the shielding layer (see Fig. 5B).
Regarding Claim 10, Fei et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5B, a distance between element P at element 570e and element X2 at element 570f is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 12, Fei et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5B, a distance between element S4 at element 570g and element X2 at element 570f is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 17, Fei et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 5B), comprising:
a primary winding set (elements P at elements 570e, 570d), comprising at least two primary winding layers (element P at element 570e and element P at element 570d);
a secondary winding set (elements S4, S3 at respectively elements 570g, 570h), comprising at least two secondary winding layers (element S4 at element 570g and element S3 at element 570h); and
a shielding layer (element X2 at element 570f), located between the primary winding set and the secondary winding set (see Fig. 5B).
Regarding Claim 18, Fei et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5B, a distance between elements P at elements 570e, 570d and element X2 at element 570f is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 19, Fei et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5B, a distance between elements S4, S3 at respectively elements 570g, 570h and element X2 at element 570f is in a predetermined range).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0273617].
Regarding Claim 1, Yu et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 7), comprising:
a first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P);
a second primary winding layer (bottom element 61 of bottom element P), disposed adjacent to the first primary winding layer (see Fig. 7);
a shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraphs [0091]-[0092]), disposed adjacent to the first primary winding layer (see Fig. 7);
a first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1), disposed adjacent to the shielding layer (see Fig. 7); and
a second secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S2), disposed adjacent to the first secondary winding layer (see Fig. 7),
wherein the first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P) and the second primary winding layer (bottom element 61 of bottom element P) are located at one side (bottom side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 7), and the first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1) and the second secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S2) are located at another side (top side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 3, Yu et al. shows the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 5, Yu et al. shows the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraph [0127], a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is 0.4 mm which is the same as a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yu et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 7), comprising:
a shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraphs [0091]-[0092]);
a first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P), located at one side (bottom side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 7);
a first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1), located at another side (top side) of the shielding layer (see Fig. 7);
a second primary winding layer (bottom element 61 of bottom element P), located one side (bottom side) of the first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P) opposite to the shielding layer (see Fig. 7); and
a second secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S2), located one side (top side) of the first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1) opposite to the shielding layer (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 10, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 11, Yu et al. shows the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 13, Yu et al. shows the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraph [0127], a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is 0.4 mm which is the same as a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1).
Regarding Claim 17, Yu et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 7), comprising:
a primary winding set (bottom element P having elements 61), comprising at least two primary winding layers (top element 61 of bottom element P and bottom element 61 of bottom element P);
a secondary winding set (elements S1, S2 having elements 62), comprising at least two secondary winding layers (element 62 of element S1 and element 62 of element S2); and
a shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraphs [0091]-[0092]), located between the primary winding set and the secondary winding set (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Yu et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between bottom element P having elements 61 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 19, Yu et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between elements S1, S2 having elements 62 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 20, Yu et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set (bottom element P having elements 61) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (elements S1, S2 having elements 62) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraph [0127], a distance between top surface of bottom element P having elements 61 and element 63 of element B1 is 0.4 mm which is the same as a distance between bottom surface of element S1 having element 62 and element 63 of element B1).
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) 2-5, 10-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. in view of Jeong et al. [KR 101629890].
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 10-11, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm.
Jeong et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 5) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which is the primary coil and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12-13, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm.
Jeong et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 5) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which can be secondary coil based on element 40 can be a primary coil as disclosed in Paragraph [0032] and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 18, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jeong et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5, Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which is the primary coil and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jeong et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5, Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which can be secondary coil based on element 40 can be a primary coil as disclosed in Paragraph [0032] and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3-6, 11-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. in view of Yu et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0273617].
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 10-11, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm.
Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range) and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12-13, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm.
Yu et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range) and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer.
Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraph [0127], a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is 0.4 mm which is the same as a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer as taught by Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, having a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Regarding Claim 18, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yu et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between bottom element P having elements 61 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yu et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between elements S1, S2 having elements 62 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 20, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer.
Yu et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set (bottom element P having elements 61) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (elements S1, S2 having elements 62) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraph [0127], a distance between top surface of bottom element P having elements 61 and element 63 of element B1 is 0.4 mm which is the same as a distance between bottom surface of element S1 having element 62 and element 63 of element B1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer as taught by Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, having a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 4-5, 12-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. in view of Phadke et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0368962].
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12-13, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm.
Phadke et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (see Fig. 6B, Paragraph [0043], element P4 and element S2 are separated by element 608 by the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Phadke et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0043]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Phadke et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 6B, Paragraph [0043], element P4 and element S2 are separated by element 608 by the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Phadke et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0043]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2-6, 10-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 10-11, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range) and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12-13, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range) and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraph [0127]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Yu et al. shows a distance between the first primary winding layer (top element 61 of bottom element P) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (element 62 of element S1) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraph [0127], a distance between top element 61 of bottom element P and element 63 of element B1 is 0.4 mm which is the same as a distance between element 62 of element S1 and element 63 of element B1).
Moreover, having a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Regarding Claim 18, Yu et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between bottom element P having elements 61 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Yu et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 7, a distance between elements S1, S2 having elements 62 and element 63 of element B1 is in a predetermined range).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 20, Yu et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set (bottom element P having elements 61) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (elements S1, S2 having elements 62) and the shielding layer (element 63 of element B1, Paragraph [0127], a distance between top surface of bottom element P having elements 61 and element 63 of element B1 is 0.4 mm which is the same as a distance between bottom surface of element S1 having element 62 and element 63 of element B1).
Moreover, having a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Jeong et al. [KR 101629890].
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 10-11, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jeong et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 5) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which is the primary coil and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12-13, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jeong et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 5) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which can be secondary coil based on element 40 can be a primary coil as disclosed in Paragraph [0032] and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 18, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jeong et al. shows a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5, Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which is the primary coil and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jeong et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 5, Paragraphs [0032], [0067]-[0069], D1 between element 201 which can be secondary coil based on element 40 can be a primary coil as disclosed in Paragraph [0032] and element 301 have the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Jeong et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to achieve desirable leakage inductance and the amount of displacement current are appropriate. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4-5, 12-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Phadke et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0368962].
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12-13, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Phadke et al. shows a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm (see Fig. 6B, Paragraph [0043], element P4 and element S2 are separated by element 608 by the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm as taught by Phadke et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0043]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range and the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Phadke et al. shows a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range (see Fig. 6B, Paragraph [0043], element P4 and element S2 are separated by element 608 by the predetermined range is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm and equal to or less than 0.6 mm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range as taught by Phadke et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to facilitate insulation requirements (Paragraph [0043]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer is in a predetermined range, 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 to facilitate insulation requirements. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer according to the specification.
However, according to the Fig. 5B, Fei et al. clearly shows a distance between the first primary winding layer (element P at element 570e) and the shielding layer (element X2 at element 570f) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (element S4 at element 570g) and the shielding layer (element X2 at element 570f, a distance between element P at element 570e and element X2 at element 570f is the same as a distance between element S4 at element 570g and element X2 at element 570f).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer as shown in Fig. 5B by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Regarding Claim 20, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer according to the specification.
However, according to the Fig. 5B, Fei et al. clearly shows a distance between the primary winding set (elements P at elements 570e, 570d) and the shielding layer (element X2 at element 570f) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (elements S4, S3 at respectively elements 570g, 570h) and the shielding layer (element X2 at element 570f, a distance between bottom surface of element P at element 570e and element X2 at element 570f is the same as a distance between top surface element S4 at element 570g and element X2 at element 570f).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer as shown in Fig. 5B by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. in view of Young et al. [U.S. Patent No. 8,212,644].
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer.
Young et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first primary winding layer (left element 5) and the shielding layer (left element 11) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (left element 7) and the shielding layer (left element 11, a distance between left surface of left element 5 and left surface of left element 11 is the same as a distance between right surface of left element 7 and right surface of left element 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer as taught by Young et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Regarding Claim 20, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer.
Young et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting a distance between the primary winding set (left element 5) and the shielding layer (left element 11) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (left element 7) and the shielding layer (left element 11, a distance between left surface of left element 5 and left surface of left element 11 is the same as a distance between right surface of left element 7 and right surface of left element 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer as taught by Young et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. in view of Levin [U.S. Patent No. 6,073,339].
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer.
Levin shows a transformer (Fig. 14 and Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first primary winding layer (primary winding on layer L8) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (secondary winding on layer L6) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, a distance between bottom surface of primary winding on layer L8 and top surface of shield on layer L7 is through substrate 23 which is the same as a distance between top surface of secondary winding on layer L6 and bottom surface of shield on layer L7 is through another substrate 23, since the substrates are identified by the same number element 23 therefore it would be obvious to find the same thickness and therefore the same distance).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer as taught by Levin for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements and reduce noise (Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) while simplifying design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Regarding Claim 20, Fei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer.
Levin shows a transformer (Fig. 14 and Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a distance between the primary winding set (primary winding on layer L8) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (secondary winding on layer L6) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, a distance between bottom surface of primary winding on layer L8 and top surface of shield on layer L7 is through substrate 23 which is the same as a distance between top surface of secondary winding on layer L6 and bottom surface of shield on layer L7 is through another substrate 23, since the substrates are identified by the same number element 23 therefore it would be obvious to find the same thickness and therefore the same distance).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer as taught by Levin for the transformer as disclosed by Fei et al. to facilitate insulation requirements and reduce noise (Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) while simplifying design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Young et al. [U.S. Patent No. 8,212,644].
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Young et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first primary winding layer (left element 5) and the shielding layer (left element 11) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (left element 7) and the shielding layer (left element 11, a distance between left surface of left element 5 and left surface of left element 11 is the same as a distance between right surface of left element 7 and right surface of left element 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer as taught by Young et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Regarding Claim 20, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Young et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting a distance between the primary winding set (left element 5) and the shielding layer (left element 11) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (left element 7) and the shielding layer (left element 11, a distance between left surface of left element 5 and left surface of left element 11 is the same as a distance between right surface of left element 7 and right surface of left element 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer as taught by Young et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Levin [U.S. Patent No. 6,073,339].
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Levin shows a transformer (Fig. 14 and Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a distance between the first primary winding layer (primary winding on layer L8) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer (secondary winding on layer L6) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, a distance between bottom surface of primary winding on layer L8 and top surface of shield on layer L7 is through substrate 23 which is the same as a distance between top surface of secondary winding on layer L6 and bottom surface of shield on layer L7 is through another substrate 23, since the substrates are identified by the same number element 23 therefore it would be obvious to find the same thickness and therefore the same distance).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer as taught by Levin for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to facilitate insulation requirements and reduce noise (Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) while simplifying design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the first primary winding layer and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the first secondary winding layer and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Regarding Claim 20, Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Levin shows a transformer (Fig. 14 and Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a distance between the primary winding set (primary winding on layer L8) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) is same with a distance between the secondary winding set (secondary winding on layer L6) and the shielding layer (shield on layer L7, a distance between bottom surface of primary winding on layer L8 and top surface of shield on layer L7 is through substrate 23 which is the same as a distance between top surface of secondary winding on layer L6 and bottom surface of shield on layer L7 is through another substrate 23, since the substrates are identified by the same number element 23 therefore it would be obvious to find the same thickness and therefore the same distance).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer as taught by Levin for the transformer as disclosed by Yu et al. to facilitate insulation requirements and reduce noise (Col. 5, Lines 65-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-19) while simplifying design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Moreover, having a distance between the primary winding set and the shielding layer is same with a distance between the secondary winding set and the shielding layer would have been an obvious design choice based on environmental and/or intended use to facilitate insulation requirements and to simplify design by reducing manufacturing time and cost.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei et al. OR Yu et al. in view of Song et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0134195].
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Fei et al. OR Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a lateral width of the first primary winding layer is less than a lateral width of the shielding layer.
Song et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 7) teaching and suggesting a lateral width (D1) of the first primary winding layer (1) is less than a lateral width (D3) of the shielding layer (3, see Fig. 7, Paragraphs [0058], [0061]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a lateral width of the first primary winding layer is less than a lateral width of the shielding layer as taught by Fei et al. OR Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Song et al. to reduce distributed capacitance such that variance in the distributed capacitance between the primary side and the secondary side is well controlled, thus variance in EMI performance is well controlled resulting the consistency in EMI performance of mass-produced switch power supply is improved (Paragraphs [0007], [0080]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Fei et al. OR Yu et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a lateral width of the first secondary winding layer is less than a lateral width of the shielding layer.
Song et al. shows a planar transformer (Fig. 7) teaching and suggesting a lateral width (D2) of the first secondary winding (2) layer is less than a lateral width (D3) of the shielding layer (3, see Fig. 7, Paragraphs [0058], [0061]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a lateral width of the first secondary winding layer is less than a lateral width of the shielding layer as taught by Fei et al. OR Yu et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Song et al. to reduce distributed capacitance such that variance in the distributed capacitance between the primary side and the secondary side is well controlled, thus variance in EMI performance is well controlled resulting the consistency in EMI performance of mass-produced switch power supply is improved (Paragraphs [0007], [0080]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights