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
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, Species II-VI, Group II, and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it is not necessarily agreed with the alleged groups or characterizations. Regarding the group, this is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classifications, classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Group II is a system with a gate driver connectable to a DC voltage source and inverter for a vehicle and Group III is a system with a power board and cold plate as a package in a stack that requires different classifications and there is a search and/or examination burden. Regarding the species, this is not found persuasive because the species of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (for example, searching different classifications, classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). The Species I-VI are different in structure and there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species where it is necessary to search for one of the species in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other species.
In addition, claims 3-4 should also be withdrawn since the claim limitations refer to Species II: Fig. 8.
Furthermore, claims 6 and 9 should also be withdrawn since the claim limitations refer to, for example, Species III: Fig. 9 and Species IV: Fig. 10.
Lastly, claim 7 should also be withdrawn since the claim limitation refers to, for example, Species V: Fig. 11 and Species VI: Fig. 12.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa [JP 2010-178439].
Regarding Claim 1, Nishikawa shows a planar transformer (Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a) with teachings from Fig. 1(a)), comprising:
a first primary coil (top element 3a) in a first layer (top element 5) of a printed circuit board (PCB) (1, see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a));
a first secondary coil (top element 3b) in one (top element 5 or top element 6) or more second layers in the PCB (1, see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a)); and
a second secondary coil (bottom element 3b) in the one or more (bottom element 5 or bottom element 5) second layers (see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a)).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishikawa shows one or more ferrite materials (2, see English translation), the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer (as of limitation "the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer", it is seen that the Nishikawa reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishikawa shows the first primary coil (top element 3a), the first secondary coil (top element 3b), and the second secondary coil (bottom element 3b) include flat windings (see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a), top element 3a, top element 3b, and bottom element 3b include flat windings).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishikawa shows the first secondary coil (top element 3b) is on a first side (top side) of the first primary coil (top element 3a, see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a)) and the second secondary coil (bottom element 3b) is on a second side (bottom side) of the first primary coil (top element 3a, see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a)), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a)),
wherein the first primary coil, the first secondary coil, and the second secondary coil are arranged in a sandwiched coil arrangement (see Fig. 4(b) or Fig. 2(a)).
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo [U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0015936].
Regarding Claim 1, Luo shows a planar transformer (Fig. 9), comprising:
a first primary coil (1st layer of Primary winding of Main board or 2nd layer of Primary winding of Winding board) in a first layer (layer for 1st layer of Primary winding or layer for 2nd layer of Primary winding) of a printed circuit board (PCB) (Main board or Winding board, see Fig. 9);
a first secondary coil (1st layer of First secondary winding) in one (layer for 1st layer of First secondary winding) or more second layers in the PCB (Main board or Winding board, see Fig. 9); and
a second secondary coil (1st layer of Second secondary winding) in the one or more (layer for 1st layer of Second secondary winding) second layers (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Luo shows the first primary coil (1st layer of Primary winding of Main board or 2nd layer of Primary winding of Winding board), the first secondary coil (1st layer of First secondary winding), and the second secondary coil (1st layer of Second secondary winding) include flat windings (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Luo shows the first secondary coil (1st layer of First secondary winding) is on a first side (top side) of the first primary coil (1st layer of Primary winding of Main board or 2nd layer of Primary winding of Winding board, see Fig. 9) and the second secondary coil (1st layer of Second secondary winding) is on a second side (bottom side) of the first primary coil (1st layer of Primary winding of Main board or 2nd layer of Primary winding of Winding board, see Fig. 9), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Fig. 9),
wherein the first primary coil, the first secondary coil, and the second secondary coil are arranged in a sandwiched coil arrangement (see Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wambsganss [U.S. Patent No. 8,841,984].
Regarding Claim 1, Wambsganss shows a planar transformer (Fig. 4), comprising:
a first primary coil (1st layer of element 202) in a first layer (layer for 1st layer of element 202) of a printed circuit board (PCB) (140, see Fig. 4, Col. 2, Lines 53-65);
a first secondary coil (1st layer of element 203) in one (layer for 1st layer of element 203) or more second layers in the PCB (140, see Fig. 4); and
a second secondary coil (2nd layer of element 203) in the one or more (layer for 2nd layer of element 203) second layers (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Wambsganss shows the first primary coil (1st layer of element 202), the first secondary coil (1st layer of element 203), and the second secondary coil (2nd layer of element 203) include flat windings (see Fig. 4, 1st layer of element 202, 1st layer of element 203, and 2nd layer of element 203 include flat windings).
Regarding Claim 8, Wambsganss shows the first secondary coil (1st layer of element 203) is on a first side (top side) of the first primary coil (1st layer of element 202, see Fig. 4) and the second secondary coil (2nd layer of element 203) is on a second side (bottom side) of the first primary coil (1st layer of element 202, see Fig. 4), the second side being opposite to the first side (see Fig. 4),
wherein the first primary coil, the first secondary coil, and the second secondary coil are arranged in a sandwiched coil arrangement (see Fig. 4).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Meinel et al. [DE 4135979].
Regarding Claim 2, Nishikawa shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Meinel et al. shows (Fig. 2 or Fig. 1) one or more ferrite materials (18A, 20A, see English translation), the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer (see English translation, element 18A, 20A perform the function of electrically shielding the windings, thereby causing the electromagnetic emission of electrical interference signals and noise of the transformer is prevented).
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 one or more ferrite materials, the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer as taught by Meinel et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Nishikawa to perform the function of electrically shielding the windings, thereby causing the electromagnetic emission of electrical interference signals and noise of the transformer is prevented (see English translation).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo OR Wambsganss in view of Nishikawa [JP 2010-178439] and Meinel et al. [DE 4135979] (to show ferrite materials provide a shield for electromagnetic interference and motivation).
Regarding Claim 2, Luo OR Wambsganss shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly disclose one or more ferrite materials, the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer.
Nishikawa shows one or more ferrite materials (2, see English translation), the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer (as of limitation "the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer", it is seen that the Nishikawa reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer).
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 one or more ferrite materials, the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer as taught by Nishikawa for the transformer as disclosed by Luo OR Wambsganss to improve coupling efficiency to achieve desirable operating characteristics.
In addition, Meinel et al. shows (Fig. 2 or Fig. 1) one or more ferrite materials (18A, 20A, see English translation), the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer (see English translation, element 18A, 20A perform the function of electrically shielding the windings, thereby causing the electromagnetic emission of electrical interference signals and noise of the transformer is prevented).
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 the one or more ferrite materials providing a shield for electromagnetic interference for the planar transformer as taught by Meinel et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Luo in view of Nishikawa OR Wambsganss in view of Nishikawa to perform the function of electrically shielding the windings, thereby causing the electromagnetic emission of electrical interference signals and noise of the transformer is prevented (see English translation).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss in view of Rainer et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0013140].
Regarding Claim 5, Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Rainer et al. shows the first primary coil (element 51 at element 54), the first secondary coil (element 52 at element 53), and the second secondary coil (element 52 at element 55) include flat windings (Paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0058]).
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 the first primary coil, the first secondary coil, and the second secondary coil include flat windings as taught by Rainer et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss to achieve a compact arrangement for the winding module to reduce manufacture size and weight (Paragraph [0085]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss in view of Zuo et al. [CN 113711483].
Regarding Claim 5, Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Zuo et al. shows the first primary coil (1413), the first secondary coil (1412), and the second secondary coil (1414) include flat windings (see English translation).
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 the first primary coil, the first secondary coil, and the second secondary coil include flat windings as taught by Zuo et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss to achieve a compact size to facilitate more multifunctional integration to reduce manufacture size and weight (see English translation).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss in view of Choi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0174396].
Regarding Claim 10, Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil.
Choi et al. shows a transformer (Figs. 3A-3B with teachings from Figs. 2A-2D) teaching and suggesting an outer perimeter of the first primary coil (30, see also Fig. 2B) is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (70, see also Fig. 2D, Paragraphs [0047], [0050], [0053], [0089], an outer perimeter of element 30 is equal to an outer perimeter of element 70, see Figs. 2B and 2D), and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (70, see also Fig. 2D) is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil (50, see also Fig. 2C, Paragraphs [0047], [0050], [0053], [0089], the outer perimeter of element 70 is equal to an outer perimeter of element 50, see Figs. 2D and 2C).
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 an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil as taught by Choi et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss to achieve good symmetry, high inductance, and high magnetic coupling ratio (Paragraph [0008]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss in view of Sugahara [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0155565].
Regarding Claim 10, Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil.
Sugahara shows a transformer (Fig. 7) teaching and suggesting an outer perimeter of the first primary coil (middle coil from pinP1 to pinP2) is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (top coil from pinS1 to GND2, an outer perimeter of middle coil from pinP1 to pinP2 is equal to an outer perimeter of top coil from pinS1 to GND2, see Fig. 7), and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (top coil from pinS1 to GND2) is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil (bottom coil from GND2 to pinS2, the outer perimeter of top coil from pinS1 to GND2 is equal to an outer perimeter of bottom coil from GND2 to pinS2, see Fig. 7).
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 an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil as taught by Sugahara for the transformer as disclosed by Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss to achieve a simplified design to suppress noise (Paragraph [0016]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss in view of Muto [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0197963].
Regarding Claim 10, Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil.
Muto shows a transformer (Figs. 1A-7E) teaching and suggesting an outer perimeter of the first primary coil (12a, see also Fig. 7B) is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (11a, see also Fig. 7A, Paragraph [0085], an outer perimeter of element 12a is equal to an outer perimeter of element 11a, see Figs. 1A-7E), and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (11a, see also Fig. 7A) is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil (14a, see also Fig. 7D, Paragraph [0085], the outer perimeter of element 11a is equal to an outer perimeter of element 14a, see Figs. 1A-7E).
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 an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil as taught by Muto for the transformer as disclosed by Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss to obtain desired electrical characteristics and coupling to achieve reduced parasitic capacitance and having good balance characteristics (Paragraphs [0031], [0032], [0073], [0214]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss in view of Song et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0134195].
Regarding Claim 10, Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil.
Song et al. shows a transformer (Fig. 7) teaching and suggesting an outer perimeter of the first primary coil (top element 1) is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (top element 2, Paragraph [0058], an outer perimeter of top element 1 is equal to an outer perimeter of top element 2 based on predetermined value δ so that element D1 is equal to element D2, see Fig. 7), and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil (top element 2) is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil (bottom element 2, Paragraph [0058], the outer perimeter of top element 2 is equal to an outer perimeter of bottom element 2 based on predetermined value δ to obtain element D2, see Fig. 7).
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 an outer perimeter of the first primary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the first secondary coil, and the outer perimeter of the first secondary coil is equal to an outer perimeter of the second secondary coil as taught by Song et al. for the transformer as disclosed by Nishikawa OR Luo OR Wambsganss to achieve variance in EMI performance among each individual converter is well controlled and therefore the consistency in EMI performance of mass-produced switch power supply is improved (Paragraph [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