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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 includes the label “Transormer.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6,12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by JI et al. (US 2022/0392688 A1; hereinafter “Ji”).
In re claim 1, Ji discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) device (Figs. 1-16d), comprising: a direct current to direct current (DCDC) converter (Figs. 17a-d) formed on a substrate (Pg. 4 [0097]: The first substrate 8a, the second substrate 8b and the third substrate 8c are printed circuit boards), the DCDC converter comprising: a primary winding (21) having a planar geometry and formed on a first surface of the substrate (8a); a secondary winding (22) having a planar geometry and formed on a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface (shown in Fig. 1); and a transformer core formed around the primary winding and the secondary winding (11).
In re claim 4, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d) device (see rejection above), wherein the transformer core is defined by a distal end, a proximal end opposite the distal end, and a length that extends laterally from the distal end to the proximal end, and wherein portions of the primary winding and the secondary winding extend laterally beyond the proximal end and distal end of the transformer core in a direction parallel to the first surface and the second surface (shown in Figs. 9A, 12, 13b, 15a-f).
In re claim 5, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d) device (see rejections above), wherein the primary winding comprises a sheet of conductive metal (Pg. 2 [0025]: the first left metal part, the first right metal part, the second left metal part and the second right metal part are conductive vias.) patterned into a planar winding configuration (Pg. 3 [0066]: the magnetic element further includes a plurality of pins disposed on a first end surface of the second substrate and a first end surface of the third substrate, and the first end surface of the second substrate and the first end surface of the third substrate are coplanar) and wherein the primary winding is soldered to the first surface of the substrate (Pg. 7 [0122]: FIG. 15e shows step S4, disposing the second substrate 8b and the third substrate 8c soldered with power elements on the first substrate 8a with the magnetic columns to form a complete first winding 21 and a complete second winding 22).
In re claim 6, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d) device (see rejections above), wherein the substrate comprises a first substrate and wherein the secondary winding comprises traces formed on or within a second substrate formed on the second surface of the first substrate (Pg. 7 [0122]: FIG. 15e shows step S4, disposing the second substrate 8b and the third substrate 8c soldered with power elements on the first substrate 8a with the magnetic columns to form a complete first winding 21 and a complete second winding 22).
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JI et al. (US 2022/0392688 A1; hereinafter “Ji”) and Hsiao et al. (US 10770981 B2; hereinafter “Hsiao”).
In re claim 2, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d) device (see rejection above), wherein the DCDC converter comprises an LLC resonant converter (Figs. 17a-d), wherein the primary winding comprises a first inductor of the LLC resonant converter and the secondary winding comprises a second inductor of the LLC resonant converter.
Ji does not disclose wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor.
Whereas, Hiaso discloses a similar PCB (Figs. 2, 7-9), wherein the DCDC converter (Fig. 2) comprises an LLC resonant converter (40), wherein the primary winding comprises a first inductor (310) of the LLC resonant converter and the secondary winding comprises a second inductor (320a) of the LLC resonant converter, and wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor (Col 11-12 Lines 67-3: The leakage inductance varies in a fixed range since the primary winding 310 and the secondary windings 320 a.sup. 320 d are arranged in the staggered manner.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji such that “wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor” as shown by Hsiao. The selection of “the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor” would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase control of inductance leakage, as taught by Hsiao, cited above.
In re claim 3, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d), wherein the primary winding, the secondary winding and the substrate form a stacked, three-layer structure comprising the substrate sandwiched between the primary winding and the secondary winding (Figs. 9a-d).
Ji does not disclose wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are partially misaligned in a direction parallel to the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the defined amount of leakage inductance results from the primary winding and the secondary winding being partially misaligned.
Whereas Hsiao discloses a similar PCB (Figs. 7-9, 13-42), wherein the primary winding, the secondary winding and the substrate form a stacked, three-layer structure comprising the substrate sandwiched between the primary winding (310) and the secondary winding (320), wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are partially misaligned in a direction parallel to the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the defined amount of leakage inductance results from the primary winding and the secondary winding being partially misaligned (Col 11-12 Lines 67-3: The leakage inductance varies in a fixed range since the primary winding 310 and the secondary windings 320 a.sup. 320 d are arranged in the staggered manner.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji such that “the primary winding and the secondary winding are partially misaligned in a direction parallel to the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the defined amount of leakage inductance results from the primary winding and the secondary winding being partially misaligned” as shown by Hsiao. The selection of “the primary winding and the secondary winding are partially misaligned in a direction parallel to the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the defined amount of leakage inductance results from the primary winding and the secondary winding being partially misaligned” would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase control of inductance leakage, as taught by Hsiao, cited above.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
In re claim 15, Ji discloses a method (Figs. 1-16d and see rejections above), wherein the transformer core is defined by a distal end, a proximal end opposite the distal end, and a length that extends laterally from the distal end to the proximal end, and wherein portions of the primary winding and the secondary winding extend laterally beyond the proximal end and distal end of the transformer core in a direction parallel to the first surface and the second surface (shown in Figs. 9A, 12, 13b, 15a-f).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji such that configurations as shown by Hsiao. The selection would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase control of inductance leakage, as taught by Hsiao, cited above.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JI et al. (US 2022/0392688 A1; hereinafter “Ji”) and Forssell et al. (US 2023/0187713 A1; hereinafter “Forssell”).
In re claim 7, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d) device (see rejections above).
Ji does not disclose comprising: busbars formed on opposite surfaces of the substrate, the busbars comprising first busbars formed on the first surface of the substrate and second busbars formed on the second surface of the substrate; and a power module formed on the substrate sandwiched between the first busbars and the second busbars, the power module comprising a plurality of power switches that control flow electrical currents between the busbars.
Whereas Forssell discloses a similar PCB device (Figs. 19-27c) comprising: busbars formed on opposite surfaces of the substrate, the busbars (2528a-b, 2520a-b) comprising first busbars formed on the first surface of the substrate and second busbars formed on the second surface of the substrate; and a power module (Fig. 27c) formed on the substrate sandwiched (Figs. 25b, 26b; 27b) between the first busbars (2528a-b) and the second busbars (2520a-b), the power module comprising a plurality of power switches (2508; Q1-4) that control flow electrical currents between the busbars.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji such that “comprising: busbars formed on opposite surfaces of the substrate, the busbars comprising first busbars formed on the first surface of the substrate and second busbars formed on the second surface of the substrate; and a power module formed on the substrate sandwiched between the first busbars and the second busbars, the power module comprising a plurality of power switches that control flow electrical currents between the busbars” as shown by Forssell. The addition of Forssell’s design would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase performance and efficiency.
In re claim 19, Ji discloses a device (Figs. 1-16d), comprising: one or more battery cells; a printed circuit board (PCB) device (see rejection above), the PCB device comprising: a direct current to direct current (DCDC) converter formed on a substrate, the DCDC converter (Figs. 17a-d) comprising: a primary winding (21) having a planar geometry and formed on a first surface of the substrate (8a); a secondary winding (22) having a planar geometry and formed on a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface (shown in Fig. 1); and a transformer core formed around the primary winding and the secondary winding (11).
Ji does not disclose one or more battery cells.
Whereas, Forssell discloses a similar device (Figs. 19-27c), comprising: one or more battery cells; a printed circuit board (PCB) device (2206) attached to the one or more battery cells (2204a-d), the PCB device comprising: a direct current to direct current (DCDC) converter formed on a substrate and electrically connected to the one or more battery cells, the DCDC converter (Fig. 16) and transformer (1404).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji such that “one or more battery cells” as shown by Forssell. The addition of one or more battery cells would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase performance and efficiency as taught by Forssell.
Claims 8-9; 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JI et al. (US 2022/0392688 A1; hereinafter “Ji”) and Forssell et al. (US 2023/0187713 A1; hereinafter “Forssell”) and in view of Automatic Storage Device (DE 20 2015 009 475 U1; hereinafter “ASD”).
In re claim 8, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d) device (see rejections above).
Ji does not disclose wherein the plurality of power switches comprise at least two switches electrically connected to the primary winding that control switching operations of the DCDC converter, and wherein the second busbars comprise: an inlet busbar electrically connected to a first switch of the at least two switches and configured to feed an input electrical current to the primary winding via the first switch; and an outlet busbar electrically connected to a second switch of the at least two switches and configured to receive an output electrical current from the primary winding via the second switch.
Whereas, Forssell discloses a similar PCB device (Figs. 25a-27c) wherein the plurality of power switches (2508) comprise at least two switches (Q1-Q4) electrically connected to control switching operations of the DCDC converter (Fig. 27c), and wherein the second busbars comprise: an inlet busbar (2706) electrically connected to a first switch of the at least two switches and configured to feed an input electrical current via the first switch; and an outlet busbar (2726) electrically connected to a second switch of the at least two switches and configured to receive an output electrical current via the second switch (2708).
Forssell does not disclose a primary winding.
Whereas, ASD discloses (Figs. 3-5) a PCB device (100), comprising: busbars (35,36) formed on opposite surfaces of the substrate (26), the busbars comprising first busbars formed on the first surface of the substrate and second busbars formed on the second surface of the substrate; and a power module (1) formed on the substrate sandwiched between the first busbars and the second busbars, the power module (1) comprising a plurality of power switches (16-19, 20-23) that control flow electrical currents between the busbars.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji with the design of Forssell such that “the plurality of power switches comprise at least two switches electrically connected to the primary winding that control switching operations of the DCDC converter, and wherein the second busbars comprise: an inlet busbar electrically connected to a first switch of the at least two switches and configured to feed an input electrical current to the primary winding via the first switch; and an outlet busbar electrically connected to a second switch of the at least two switches and configured to receive an output electrical current from the primary winding via the second switch” as shown by Forssell and ASD. The additions of Forssell and ASD would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase performance and efficiency.
In re claim 9, Ji discloses a PCB (Figs. 1-16d) device (see rejections above).
Ji does not disclose wherein the at least two switches are sandwiched between a portion of the primary winding and respective portions of the inlet busbar and the outlet busbar, and wherein the at least two power switches are aligned with the portion of the primary winding and the respective portions of the inlet busbar and the outlet busbar in a direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface.
Whereas, Forssell discloses a similar PCB device (Figs. 25a-27c) wherein the at least two switches (2508) are sandwiched between respective portions of the inlet busbar and the outlet busbar (2520, 2522), and wherein the at least two power switches are aligned with the respective portions of the inlet busbar and the outlet busbar in a direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface (Figs. 25a-27c).
Forssell does not disclose a primary winding.
Whereas, AFD discloses a similar (Figs. 1-5) a PCB device (100), wherein the at least two switches (17,19) are sandwiched between a portion of the primary winding (8) and respective portions of the inlet busbar (35) and the outlet busbar (36), and wherein the at least two power switches (21,23) are aligned with the portion of the primary winding (9) and the respective portions of the inlet busbar (35) and the outlet busbar (36) in a direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji with the design of Forssell such that “two switches are sandwiched between a portion of the primary winding and respective portions of the inlet busbar and the outlet busbar, and wherein the at least two power switches are aligned with the portion of the primary winding and the respective portions of the inlet busbar and the outlet busbar in a direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface” as shown by Forssell and ASD. The additions of Forssell and ASD would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase performance and efficiency.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JI et al. (US 2022/0392688 A1; hereinafter “Ji”), Hsiao et al. (US 10770981 B2; hereinafter “Hsiao”), and in view of Forssell et al. (US 2023/0187713 A1; hereinafter “Forssell”).
In re claim 20, Ji discloses a device (Figs. 1-16d and see rejection above), wherein the DCDC converter comprises an LLC resonant converter (Figs. 17a-d), wherein the primary winding comprises a first inductor of the LLC resonant converter and the secondary winding comprises a second inductor of the LLC resonant converter.
Ji does not disclose wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor.
Whereas, Hiaso discloses a similar device (Figs. 2, 7-9), wherein the DCDC converter (Fig. 2) comprises an LLC resonant converter (40), wherein the primary winding comprises a first inductor (310) of the LLC resonant converter and the secondary winding comprises a second inductor (320a) of the LLC resonant converter, and wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor (Col 11-12 Lines 67-3: The leakage inductance varies in a fixed range since the primary winding 310 and the secondary windings 320 a.sup. 320 d are arranged in the staggered manner.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ji with the teachings of Forssell such that “wherein the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor” as shown by Hsiao. The selection of “the primary winding and the secondary winding are respectively configured to generate a defined amount of leakage inductance by the LLC resonant converter without usage of a third inductor” would be a routine matter to the person of ordinary skill to increase control of inductance leakage, as taught by Hsiao, cited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 10, Ji (see rejections above) is considered the closest prior art. Additionally, Forssell (see rejections above) discloses a similar PCB device (Figs. 22-27c), further comprising: a row of capacitors (2204a-d) formed on the second surface at a position aligned with the power module (2206) in the direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface.
Despite the similarity of the reference with the Applicant’s invention, Forssell does not teach wherein a distal end of the row is aligned with the portion of the primary winding in the direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface, wherein the row of capacitors is electrically connected to the primary winding and is configured to provide a second input electrical current to the primary winding and further configured to perform a function of the PCB device disassociated with the DCDC converter. The other prior art on record does not provide the suggestion to modify Forssell or Ji to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Ji (see rejections above) is considered the closest prior art. Additionally, Forssell (see rejections above) discloses a similar PCB device (Figs. 22-27c).
Despite the similarity of the reference with the Applicant’s invention, Forssell does not teach wherein the DCDC converter further comprises: a row of capacitors formed on the second surface and electrically connected to a portion of the primary winding, wherein the row of capacitors is aligned with the portion of the primary winding in a direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface. The other prior art on record does not provide the suggestion to modify Forssell or Ji to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Wambsganss US 20200258680 A1 INTEGRATED TRANSFORMER WITH LOW AC LOSSES AND IMPEDANCE BALANCED INTERFACE
SPINELLA et al. US 20230343504 A1 IMPROVED PERFORMANCE OF CONVERTER
Frauwallner et al. US 11051406 B2 Component Carrier With Integrated Inductor And Manufacturing Method
KIYONAGA et al. WO 2022255115 A1 COIL DEVICE AND POWER CONVERSION DEVICE
YU et al. CN 108364768 A Planar Transformer, Power Switching Circuit And An Adapter
Al Bastami et al. WO 2025038493 A2 APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLED WAVESHAPING
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicolas A Chapa Mills whose telephone number is (571)272-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-1682. 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.
/NICOLAS ALDEN CHAPA MILLS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights