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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Forage does not teach “at least one wire comprises a plurality of branch wires connected in parallel, a sensed branch wire of the plurality of branch wires passes through the current sensor, across-sectional area of the sensed branch wire is B, and across-sectional area of the one wire is D, and wherein a current value of the sensed branch wire is detected by the current sensor so as to obtain a total current value of the first winding of the transformer, and a ratio of the total current value of the first winding to the detected current value of the sensed branch wire is proportional to D/B” as amended.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. The first winding 318 of Fornage has two primary legs 317 and 319 that are disposed in parallel. Each of these two legs 317 and 319 passes through the current sensor 307, and the examiner interprets the two legs 317 and 319 as the claimed “plurality of branch wires.” The claim does not require that only the sensed branch wire passes through the current sensor. Fornage would inherently have the claimed ratio. Therefore, Forage reasonably still teaches, best understood in view of 35 USC 112 rejection below, “at least one wire comprises a plurality of branch wires connected in parallel, a sensed branch wire of the plurality of branch wires passes through the current sensor, across-sectional area of the sensed branch wire is B, and across-sectional area of the one wire is D, and wherein a current value of the sensed branch wire is detected by the current sensor so as to obtain a total current value of the first winding of the transformer, and a ratio of the total current value of the first winding to the detected current value of the sensed branch wire is proportional to D/B” as amended.
Lazzerini also teaches the amended features with similar explanation as above.
With respect the dependent claims arguments, the examiner maintains the limitations are obvious over Fornage with the explanation made in rejection body.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn as a result of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 09/08/2026.
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 “at least one wire comprises a plurality of branch wires connected in parallel” as amended claim 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the originally filed specification does not disclose “one wire of the at least one wire comprises a plurality of branch wires connected in parallel, a sensed branch wire of the plurality of branch wires passes through the current sensor” as amended. Paragraph [0027] of the originally filed specification discloses “the first winding 131 includes a plurality of sub-windings 1311 connected in parallel, and the second winding 132 includes a plurality of sub-windings 1321 connected in parallel” as shown in FIGs. 1a-6. However, in the elected embodiment FIGs. 13-16, the first winding 331 “has only one sub-winding, the sub-winding has two first wires Y31, and one second wire Y32” (para. [0063]). The “[t]wo first wires Y31, and one second wire Y32” are different from “sub-windings” that are connected in parallel.
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, 2, 4, 7 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 1, it’s not clear what’s intended by “one wire of the at least one wire comprises a plurality of branch wires connected in parallel, a sensed branch wire of the plurality of branch wires passes through the current sensor” as amended when the limitations in question is interpreted in light of the originally filed specification. As explained above, the “[t]wo first wires Y31, and one second wire Y32” are different from “sub-windings” that are connected in parallel as disclosed in FIGs. 1a-12 of the present invention. Accordingly, the limitation in question is not clear in light of the specification. Does applicant mean the branch wires Y31 and Y32 are disposed in parallel relationship as seen in FIG. 15?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fornage et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2011/0260824 A1, hereinafter “Fornage”).
With respect to claim 1, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Fornage teaches an integrated magnetic element (FIGs. 3 and 4), comprising:
a base (board on which the transformer is mounted, not expressly shown) ;
a current sensor 370 disposed on the base; and
a transformer 300 provided on the base through which the current sensor and the transformer are integrated into one part, the transformer comprising a magnetic core 302 and or 306, a first winding 318 comprising at least one wire (wire of first winding), and a second winding 322,
wherein one wire of the at least one wire comprises a plurality of branch wires 317 and 319 connected parallel (physical parallel relationship), a sensed branch wire 317 or 319 of the plurality of branch wires passes through the current sensor, a cross-sectional area of the sensed branch wire is B, and a cross-sectional area of the one wire is D, and
wherein a current value of the sense branch wire is detected by the current sensor so as to obtain a total current value of the first winding of the transformer, and a ratio of the total current value of the first winding to the detected current value of the sensed branch wire is proportional to D/B (paras. [0033], [0036], [0038], [0040] and [0046]).
With respect to claim 4, Fornage teaches the integrated magnetic element according to claim 1 wherein the first winding is a primary winding or a secondary winding (para. [0036]).
Claim 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazzerini et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,000,878, hereinafter “Lazzerini”).
With respect to claim 1, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Lazzerini teaches an integrated magnetic element (FIGs. 1-11), comprising:
a base 14 ;
a current sensor 16 disposed on the base; and
a transformer 10 provided on the base through which the current sensor and the transformer are integrated into one part, the transformer comprising a magnetic core 12, a first winding 20 comprising at least one wire (wire of first winding), and a second winding 50,
wherein one wire of the at least one wire comprises a plurality of branch wires (lead out wires) connected in parallel (physical parallel relationship), a sensed branch wire (wire that goes through current sensor) of the plurality of branch wires passes through the current sensor, across-sectional area of the sensed branch wire is B, and across-sectional area of the one wire is D,
wherein and current value of the sensed branch wire is detected by the current sensor so as to obtain a total current value of the first winding of the transformer, ,and a ratio of the total current value of the first winding to the detected current value of the sensed branch wire is proportional to D/B (col. 4, lines 29-36 and 47-61, and col. 7, lines 11-14).
With respect to claim 6, Lazzerini teaches the integrated magnetic element according to claim 1, wherein the first winding comprises at least one sub-winding 122 and or 124, each sub-winding comprising a plurality of wires (col. 5, lines 14-16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornage.
With respect to claim 2, Fornage teaches the integrated magnetic element according to claim 1. the wire comprises a first branch wire 317 and a second branch wire 318, the sensed branch wire is the first branch wire, the first branch wire passes through the first magnetic core of the current sensor, the cross-sectional area of the first branch wire is B, B = l2 × t2, wherein l2 is the width of the first branch wire, t2 is the thickness of the first branch wire; the cross-sectional area of the second branch wire is C, C = l3 × t3, where l3 is the width of the second branch wire and t3 is the thickness of the second branch wire (para. [0040]). Fornage does not expressly teach the cross section of the wire is D, D = B + C; the first branch wire and the second branch wire are connected in parallel and directly fixed on the base, and the spatial position relationship between the first branch wire, the second branch wire and the current sensor is fixed even though drawings reasonably show such features. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed cross section D relationship with the cross sections B and C and the first and second branch wires structure to meet the required electrical and or mechanical properties. Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed cross section D and the wire branches to provide the required current density on the branches and to improve ease of connection of the branches to the base.
With respect to claim 3, Fornage teaches the integrated magnetic element according to claim 2. Fornage does not expressly teach the ratio of the total current value of the first winding to the detected current of the first branch wire is proportional to D/B even though Fornage could have the claimed limitations based on the similarities of the physical structure between Fornage and the present invention. Nonetheless, it would be within the skill of a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed proportion to provide the required electrical characteristics. Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed proportion to provide the required current density to meet design requirements.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornage, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lazzerini.
With respect to claim 7, Fornage teaches the integrated magnetic element according to claim 1, wherein the current sensor comprises a first magnetic core 350 and or 380, a bobbin 340, and a coil, the first magnetic core is connected to the bobbin, the bobbin is disposed on the base, the coil is winded on the bobbin, and the bobbin and the first magnetic core have a central hole therebetween through which the sensed branch wire passes (para. [0039]). Fornage does not expressly teach the coils are electrically connected to a first terminal of the bobbin.
Lazzerini teaches an integrated magnetic element (Fig. 1), wherein the coils (not expressly shown) are connected to the terminals 30 and or 32 (col. 4, lines 39-47). The combination would result in “the coils are winded onto the bobbin and electrically connected to a first terminal of the bobbin” as claimed. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the coils connection to the terminal as taught by Lazzerini to the integrated magnetic element of Fornage to improve ease of connection between the coil and the terminal.
With respect to claim 8, Fornage in view of Lazzerini teaches the integrated magnetic element according to claim 7, wherein a bottom of the bobbin is provided with a third fixing terminal, and wherein the third fixing terminal is connected to the base (col. 4, lines 39-47). The combination would result in the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights