NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/507,694, entitled PLANAR TRANSFORMER.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
I. PRIORITY
Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s claim of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/425,014, filed November 14, 2022.
II. OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because they recite “the primary-side circuit and the secondary-side circuit are arranged on a main circuit board, and the circuit board is plugged into the main circuit board.” Claims 1 and 7, from which they depend recite the primary-side circuit and the secondary-side circuit are arranged on “the circuit board.” Thus, claims 6 and 14 are internally inconsistent claims 1 and 7 and inconsistent with the specification (See FIG. 2B). How can both the primary-side and secondary-side circuits be mounted on both the circuit board and the main circuit board? Examiners find this is merely a typographical error and claims 6 and 14 should recite the primary-side and secondary-side circuits should be mounted on “the circuit board, and the circuit board is plugged into a main circuit board” as shown in FIG. 2B. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of this action, Examiners will interpret these claims based on the suggestion above and in view of FIG. 2 of the specification.
III. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
III.A. Failure to Further Limit
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites that “the first width is greater than the second width.” However, claim 4, which depends from claim 1 recites that the “first width is greater than or equal to the second width.” Thus, claim 4 recites a broader range for the first width than claim 1. Specifically, claim 4 covers a situation wherein the first and second widths are equal whereas claim 1 does not. Thus, claim 4 does not further limit claim 1, but rather broadens claim 1.
III.B Indefiniteness
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The claims recite that “the primary-side trace, the secondary-side trace, and the through hole have a plurality of second distances.” A distance is a measurement between two points. However, this phrase and the rest of these claims do not define any two points to understand what are the second distances. Furthermore, several distinct structures have “second distances” and thus Examiner does not find the claim is clear as to whether these second distances are the same distance or different, based on the same phrase used for all these distinct structures. As similar issue is contained in claim 11 in regard to the “third distance.” In view of the forgoing, Examiner find one having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of the claim and thus concludes claims 6-14 which include this phrase are indefinite.
IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiner further finds that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner concludes that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiner’s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
V. COMPACT PROSECUTION
The Examiner finds that because claims 6-14 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as outlined above, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible in the following art rejections. Thus, the rejections below are merely a guide as to how the art would be applied IF the indefiniteness rejection above is overcome. For purposes of examination, Examiners will interpret the indefinite limitation such that any distance having some relationship to “the primary-side trace, the secondary-side trace, and the through hole” can be the recited “second distance” in view of the claims failing to provide any definition or limits on what this second distance is.
VI. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102
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.
(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.
VI.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying Huang
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0162905 to Xiucheng Huang et al., published on May 25, 2023 and having a filing date of at least February 7, 2022 (hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses:
1. A planar transformer applied to an isolated converter, the isolated converter comprising a primary-side circuit and a secondary-side circuit, the planar transformer comprising:
See Huang Title “PLANAR TRANSFORMER” and FIG. 14, reprinted below, for general circuit configuration and FIG. 12, reprinted below for transformer structure relevant to this rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang FIG. 14
PNG
media_image2.png
464
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huang FIG. 12
a circuit board arranged in the isolated converter, the circuit board comprising:
See Huang ¶0023 wherein which states “FIG. 12 illustrates a simplified partial cross-sectional view through a region of a PCB-based transformer, according to embodiments of the disclosure.” Further see Huang ¶0028 which states “in some embodiments a transformer is formed from a multilayer PCB that includes windings formed around a magnetic core.”
a primary-side trace formed on a primary-side layer of the circuit board, and the primary-side trace configured to serve as a primary-side coil coupled to the primary-side circuit, and
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note primary side trace P2 on a primary-side layer circuit board, which serves as part the primary side circuit part.
a secondary-side trace formed on a secondary-side layer of the circuit board, and the secondary-side trace configured to serve as a secondary-side coil coupled to the secondary-side circuit, and
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note secondary side trace S2 on a secondary-side layer circuit board, which serves as part the secondary side circuit.
an iron core comprising a core pillar, the core pillar penetrating a through hole of the circuit board, and the primary-side trace and the secondary-side trace surrounding the through hole,
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note E-I core 1225 shown.
wherein the secondary-side trace has a first width and the primary-side trace has a second width, and the first width is greater than the second width.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note secondary side trace S2 has a width that is greater than the width of the primary side trace P2.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 1 as evidenced above and further:
2. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 1, wherein the number of the primary-side layers is plural and the number of the secondary-side layers is plural; each primary-side layer comprises the primary-side trace, and each secondary-side layer comprises the secondary-side trace; the primary-side traces are close to a center of the circuit board and the secondary-side traces are away from the center to form a sandwich trace.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note primary side layers having traces P1 and P2 which are closer to the center of the PCB board array than secondary side layers having traces S1 and S2.
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 1 as evidenced above and further:
3. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 1, wherein the circuit board further comprises: at least one auxiliary trace formed on the primary-side layer to serve as at least one auxiliary coil, wherein the at least one auxiliary trace surrounds the through hole to form a concentric structure with the primary-side trace.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note auxiliary trace Ap1 on the layer of the primary side trace P2 layer and surrounds the hole for the core and are concentric with the primary side trace P2.
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 3 as evidenced above and further:
4. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 3, wherein the second width is formed by the at least one auxiliary trace and the primary-side trace, and the first width is greater than or equal to the second width.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note the width of the primary side trace P1 and the auxiliary trace Ap1 have a width less than the first width of the secondary side trace S2.
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 3 as evidenced above and further:
5. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 3, wherein the number of turns of surrounding the hole of at least one of the primary-side trace, the secondary-side trace, and the at least one auxiliary trace is not an integer.
See Huang FIG. 8 which illustrates a secondary side trace S2/110 which illustrates the traces has greater than one turn of winding, not any integer.
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses:
7. A planar transformer applied to an isolated converter, the isolated converter comprising a primary-side circuit and a secondary-side circuit, the planar transformer comprising:
See Huang Title “PLANAR TRANSFORMER” and FIG. 14, reprinted below, for general circuit configuration and FIG. 12, reprinted below for transformer structure relevant to this rejection.
a circuit board arranged in the isolated converter, the circuit board comprising:
See Huang ¶0023 wherein which states “FIG. 12 illustrates a simplified partial cross-sectional view through a region of a PCB-based transformer, according to embodiments of the disclosure.” Further see Huang ¶0028 which states “in some embodiments a transformer is formed from a multilayer PCB that includes windings formed around a magnetic core.”
a primary-side trace formed on a primary-side layer of the circuit board, and the primary-side trace configured to serve as a primary-side coil coupled to the primary-side circuit, and
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note primary side trace P2 on a primary-side layer circuit board, which serves as part the primary side circuit part.
a secondary-side trace formed on a secondary-side layer of the circuit board, and the secondary-side trace configured to serve as a secondary-side coil coupled to the secondary-side circuit, and
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note secondary side trace S2 on a secondary-side layer circuit board, which serves as part the secondary side circuit.
an iron core comprising a core pillar, the core pillar penetrating a through hole of the circuit board, and the primary-side trace and the secondary-side trace surrounding the through hole, wherein the iron core comprises an air gap having a first distance;
See Huang FIG. 12 above, iron core 1225 having an air gap 1230 as first distance.
the primary-side trace, the secondary-side trace, and the through hole have a plurality of second distances, and the second distances are respectively greater than or equal to three times of the first distance.
Note indefiniteness rejection above. Further note horizontal width in FIG. 12 of P1 as second distance shown in drawing is more than three times the air gap width first distance. Further note horizontal width in FIG. 12 of S2 as another second distance is more than three times the air gap distance. Finally note the vertical length in FIG. 12 of the through for the core 1225 at 1235 as a second distance is more than three times the gap distance.
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 7 as evidenced above and further:
8. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 7, wherein the secondary-side trace has a first width and the primary-side trace has a second width, and the first width is greater than the second width.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note secondary side trace S2 has a width that is greater than the width of the primary side trace P2.
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 7 as evidenced above and further:
9. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 7, wherein the number of the primary-side layers is plural and the number of the secondary-side layers is plural; each primary-side layer comprises the primary-side trace, and each secondary-side layer comprises the secondary-side trace; the primary-side traces are close to a center of the circuit board and the secondary-side traces are away from the center to form a sandwich trace.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note primary side layers having traces P1 and P2 which are closer to the center of the PCB board array than secondary side layers having traces S1 and S2.
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 7 as evidenced above and further:
10. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 7, wherein the circuit board further comprises: at least one auxiliary trace formed on the primary-side layer to serve as at least one auxiliary coil, wherein the at least one auxiliary trace surrounds the through hole to form a concentric structure with the primary-side trace.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note auxiliary trace Ap1 on the layer of the primary side trace P2 layer and surrounds the hole for the core and are concentric with the primary side trace P2.
Regarding claim 11, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 10 as evidenced above and further:
11. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 10, wherein the at least one auxiliary trace and the through hole have at least one third distance, and the at least one third distance is greater than or equal to three times of the first distance.
Note indefiniteness rejection of this claim above. Further note horizontal spacing in FIG. 12 between auxiliary winding Ap1 and the core as a third distance which is more than three times the air gap width first distance.
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 10 as evidenced above and further:
12. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 10, wherein the number of turns of surrounding the hole of at least one of the primary-side trace, the secondary-side trace, and the at least one auxiliary trace is not an integer.
See Huang FIG. 8 which illustrates a secondary side trace S2/110 which illustrates the traces has greater than one turn of winding, not any integer.
Regarding claim 13, Huang discloses the transformer of claim 10 as evidenced above and further:
13. The planar transformer as claimed in claim 10, wherein the second width is formed by at least one auxiliary trace and the primary-side trace, and the first width is greater than or equal to the second width.
See Huang FIG. 12 above, note the width of the primary side trace P1 and the auxiliary trace Ap1 have a width less than the first width of the secondary side trace S2.
VII. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
VII.A. Obviousness Rejection Applying Huang and Rowley
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,124,778 to Anna Rowley et al. (hereinafter “Rowley”). Regarding these claims, Huang teaches the features of the transformers of claims 1 and 7 as provided above, but not any mounting of the transformer. Nevertheless, Rowley teaches a planar transformer assembly wherein primary and secondary circuits are mounted onto a circuit board (See Rowley FIG. 1) and further teaches its transformer board “vertical mounted on the PCB into a power supply motherboard” (See Rowley col. 8, lines 62-64) via plug connects (See Rowley FIG. 1, connectors 26). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to plug the planar transformer of Huang into a motherboard as taught by Rowley. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so first because the planar transformer of Huang is a circuit component which would in ordinary use be mounted onto a larger main circuit board. Furthermore, such a mounted as suggested in Rowley would be vertically into a motherboard to save space on the main/motherboard while maintaining a “very low profile.” See Rowley col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 1.
IX. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
X. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights