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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 (entirely) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Priority
Since the related applications under the title have been fully matured into patents. Therefore, the patents should have been updated to: “, now patent No. __________”.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: -- “TRANSFORMER MODULE METAL WINDING PROCESS” --.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by applicant on 10/16/2023, 10/24/2023, 3/7/2024, 6/6/2024, 8/27/2024, 8/18/2025. Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble is unclear and does not correspond to the body (see line 6 recites a magnetic core) therefore, for clarity of the claim it is suggested the following preamble:
--"A manufacturing process of a metal winding for a transformer module, the manufacturing process comprising steps of:” --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The scope of the claim 1 is unclear since the preamble directed to a making of “a metal winding” and claim recites other unrelated structure (e.g., a magnetic core; and a second metal winding) which does not inline with the preamble line 1, and made scope of the claims unclear.
“a magnetic core” (claim 1, lines 5-6) should be changed to: --“a magnetic core of the transformer module” --, as so to reflect the suggested preamble lines 1-2 (see above).
“performing insulation processing on a surface of on a surface of at least one of the first metal copper foil and a second metal copper foil; “(claim 1, lines 3-4) is awkwardly worded and should be updated to:
--“insulating one of the first metal copper foil and a second metal copper foil surface; “--, for clarity of the method inventive limitation.
“bending the first metal copper foil to form a first metal winding to cover on a magnetic core; and “(claim 1, lines 5-6) is confusing since the scope of the claims clearly drawn to “a metal winding “. Also, it is unclear whether “a magnetic core is part of the claimed “metal winding”?
Whether or not “a first metal winding “(claim 1, line 5) and “a second metal winding” (claim 1, line 8) as same as “a metal winding” in the preamble? Since claim 1 only requires the making of a single “metal winding” as clearly defined in the preamble.
Whether “a surface” (clam 1, about line 7) is as same as “a surface “ in line 3 of claim 1 or not?
“a pin of the first metal winding” (claim 1, line 8) is unclear and confusing in that it is not known if this directed to “a pin “as previously cited in claim line 2?
Claims 2-4 are also should be updated to reflect changes as suggested in the base claim 1 (see insulating step above).
Claims 5-8 are also raise issues of 112 similar to that as in lines 5 and 8 of claim 1 (see above). Since, the preamble of claim 1 directed to the making of “a metal winding” and claim 5-7 directed to more than one metal windings and claim 8 directed to the making of “a third metal winding” which made scope of claims 5-8 is unclear.
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) 1-8 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 6087922) in view Crocker et al (US 8665048).
Smith discloses the claimed manufacturing process of a metal winding, comprising:
cutting a first metal copper foil to form a connector 22 and a pin 30/32 (see Fig. 1, terminals as pin 30/32);
performing insulation processing on a surface of at least one of the first metal copper foil and a second metal copper foil;
bending the first metal copper foil to form a first metal winding 20 to cover on a magnetic core 40 (see Figs. 1, 2-6); and
covering the second metal copper foil 28 at least partially on a surface of the first metal copper foil to form a second metal winding 28, and a pin 32 of the first metal winding passes 20 through the second metal winding 28 (see Fig. 4 in horizontal direction).
If argues that the Smith does not teach cutting a first metal copper foil to form a connector 22 and a pin 32. Then Applicant(s) refers to Fig. 8 of the Crocker et al for such process set forth above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Crocker et al teaching as noted above onto the invention of Smith in order to facilitate the fabrication process by utilizing the known and available.
As applied to claim 2, refers to Fig. 8 for teaching of insulation of first and second coil respectively (see discussion in col.11, lines 62-67).
Claim 3 does not further limit the base claim 1 since it directed to a mode of operation entity rather than method of forming the metal winding.
As applied to claim 4, Applicant(s) refers to discussion at col. 11, lines 62-67 and col. 12 lines 1-15.
As applied to claim 6 refer to col. 14, lines 11-12 of the Smith.
Claims 7-8 just as repeating process of base claim 1 to obtain a multi coil integrated structures. Therefore, The subject-matter of claims 7-8 is/are therefore not inventive when departing from Smith in combination with Crocker et al The skilled person would integrate a number of coil windings as taught by Smith in order to form a multilayer coil winding without exercising any inventive skills.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights