DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 Jul 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. & 112”, filed 14 Aug 2026, with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, “The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102”, filed 14 Aug 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Sheehan (US 11646145 B2). Mayer discloses every element of amended claim 1 except the first stepped portion. Its partition 16 is flat, with no step where it meets wall 71 or base 10. Sheehan teaches an extension portion 310 that projects from one wall to meet an adjacent sidewall 218. It can be dimensioned so the two contact (Col 9:58-10:4 of Sheehan), and its stated purpose is to lengthen the minimum creepage path. Mayer’s partition 16 is the primary/secondary isolation boundary. A PHOSITA would add Sheehan’s step at the junctions of the partition 16 with wall 71 and base 10, in both chambers 17 and 18 to lengthen the creepage distance along that boundary. This is a simple mechanical modification of known structure with a predictable result, MPEP § 2143 (I) (C)/(D).
Applicant's arguments, see “The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, filed 14 Aug 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In response to applicant's argument that “Sheehan teaches an extension portion 310 that extends into the cavity, not from a partition wall”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Mayer is relied upon for the partition wall, and Sheehan for the technique of a stepped extension to lengthen creepage distance. A PHOSITA would have applied that technique at Mayer’s partition junctions. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that “the result of combining Mayer and Sheehan in the manner proposed by the Office Action would, at most, result in the addition of an overlapping structure of a lid extension and a sidewall at the outer periphery of the housing. Whereas the extension portion 310 and the sidewall 218 of Sheehan are spaced apart from each other by a small gap”, it is noted that Sheehan Col 10:19-22 expressly discloses, “In other embodiments, the lid portion 300 and body portion 200 can be dimensioned such that the extension portion 310 and sidewall 218 contact one another.” A reference is prior art for everything that it teaches, including non-preferred embodiments, MPEP § 2123.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the creepage distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core facing each other across the partition wall is maximized, thereby enabling miniaturization while maintaining isolation performance for the same rating”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references to “apply the technique to ensure symmetrical isolation”, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sheehan states that the extension and sidewall increase the minimum creepage distance. Lengthening the primary/secondary boundary of Mayer’s housing is a reason to combine that does not depend on the chambers being symmetrical. Unequal chamber sizes do not prevent adding the step at each partition junction.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Jedlitschka, Yang, Kippley, or Tamura are not relied upon to teach the first stepped portion, which Mayer and Sheehan together teach.
In response to applicant's arguments that claims 2, 7, and 9-10 are patentable, these claims are not separately argued and stay are rejected over Mayer in view of Sheehan with the originally applied secondary references, for the reasons given for claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Sheehan (US 11646145 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Mayer discloses an enclosure (housing, abstract), for an isolated converter (power supply, abstract), comprising: a main body (17-18, Fig 2) having a primary-side space (space 17 contains switching stage 25 and control stage 24 and "The switching stage is accommodated directly in the vicinity of the primary stage of the power transformer", Fig 2, Col 3[39-41]) and a secondary-side space (space 18 contains the secondary side filter and rectifier unit 27, Fig 2, Col 5[4-7]), wherein the main body comprises: a partition wall provided to vertically separate the primary-side space and the secondary-side space from each other (16 separates 17 from 18, Fig 2); and an upper wall (71, Fig 2) and a lower wall (10, Fig 2) provided above and below the partition wall, respectively (71 is above 16 and 10 is below 16, Fig 2); wherein the primary-side space and the secondary-side space are defined by the upper wall, the lower wall and the partition wall (17 is defined by 10, 71 and 16, and 18 is defined by 71, 10, and 16, Fig 2).
Mayer discloses a partition wall (16, Fig 2), but does not disclose a first stepped portion to form a step difference with the upper wall and the lower wall while being in contact with the upper wall and the lower wall, in each of the primary-side space and the secondary-side space.
Sheehan teaches a conventional low-profile housing for electronic components (see Fig 2) including a first stepped portion to form a step difference with the upper wall and the lower wall (310 protrudes from wall 300 into the housing cavity and forms a relative step to the adjoining sidewall 218 of body portion 200, where “ the lid portion 300 and body portion 200 can be dimensioned such that the extension portion 310 and sidewall 218 contact one another.”, Fig 2/4B, Col 10:19-22), in each of the primary-side space and the secondary-side space (a person having ordinary skill in the art would apply this stepped technique to Mayer’s partition wall 16 in the primary side space 17 and also in Mayer’s secondary side space 18 to increase the minimum creepage path, and because partition 16 adjoins both wall 71 and wall 10, the stepped portion is in contact with both the upper wall and the lower wall in each space, Fig 2, Col 10:19-22).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the low-profile housing for electronic components in Mayer, as taught by Sheehan, as it provides the advantage of increasing the creepage distance (abstract and Col 10:19-22 of Sheehan).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mayer and Sheehan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further comprising side plates provided on both sides of the main body (upper housing part 71 covers the power supply equipment on all four sides and fastens to the base plate 10, Fig 2, Col 6:27-29 of Mayer).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mayer and Sheehan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3, and further comprising input/output terminals provided on the outside of the side plates (external terminal 39 is one of the inherent input/output terminals of this AC/DC converter that gets its input from the electric power network, Fig 1, Col 1:13-26 of Mayer).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mayer and Sheehan discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further comprising a second stepped portion provided from the first stepped portion to the opposite side of the partition wall (218 extends from adjacent extension 310, Fig 2 of Sheehan) and having a groove portion in the center ("a small gap separating the sidewall from the extension portion or fin.", Fig 2, Col 10:16-19 of Sheehan), in each of the primary-side space and the secondary-side space (a person having ordinary skill in the art would apply this technique to both chambers of Mayer to increase the creepage path, Fig 2, Col 10:19-22 of Sheehan).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Jedlitschka (US 6115236 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Mayer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Mayer does not disclose a wherein the partition wall is provided in the center of the main body.
Jedlitschka teaches a conventional HT power supply unit modular support for use with an enclosed isolated converter (see Fig 1) including wherein the partition wall is provided in the center of the main body (12/12' is shown in the center of the central module 10 of the HT power supply unit modular support, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the HT power supply unit modular support in Mayer, as taught by Jedlitschka, as it provides the advantage of accommodating a converter that requires an equal or approximately equal quantity of real state on the primary and secondary sides.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Sheehan (US 11646145 B2), and further in view of Yang (US 20200117256 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mayer and Sheehan discloses an isolated converter, comprising: an enclosure according to claim 1.
The combination of Mayer and Sheehan does not disclose a primary-side core and a primary-side PCB disposed in the primary-side space; and a secondary-side core and a secondary-side PCB disposed in the secondary-side space.
Yang teaches a conventional power converter (see Figs 1, 3-4 & 10) primary-side core (primary side core is contained within cover 301, Fig 3, [0037]) and a primary-side PCB disposed in the primary-side space (primary side PCB module 42 is inside space X that is added to the modified Fig 10 above, Fig 4); and a secondary-side core (secondary side core is contained within cover 301a, Fig 3, [0037]) and a secondary-side PCB disposed in the secondary-side space (secondary side PCB module 43 is inside space Y that is added to the modified Fig 10 below, Fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the case in Mayer, as taught by Yang, as it provides the advantage of isolation between the primary and secondary sides for safe operation.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mayer, Sheehan, and Yang teaches an enclosure according to claim 9, wherein the primary-side core is disposed on the partition wall side of the primary-side space (primary side core is contained within cover 301 located inside primary-side space X that is added to the modified Fig 10 above, Fig 3, [0037] of Yang); and the secondary-side core is disposed on the partition wall side of the secondary-side space (secondary side core is contained within cover 301a is inside space Y that is added to the modified Fig 10 above, Fig 3, [0037] of Yang).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Sheehan (US 11646145 B2), and further in view of Yang (US 20200117256 A1) and Kippley (US 8897029 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mayer, Sheehan, and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim 9.
The combination of Mayer, Sheehan, and Yang does not teach wherein the primary-side PCB is disposed on a side of the primary-side core facing away from the partition wall within the primary-side space, and the secondary-side PCB is disposed on a side of the secondary-side core facing away from the partition wall within the secondary-side space.
Kippley teaches a conventional power converter (see Fig 4A-B) including wherein the primary-side PCB is disposed on a side of the primary-side core facing away from the partition wall within the primary-side space ("the primary winding of transformer 402 may be electrically connected to the primary side circuit on the first power board 404", Fig 4A-B, Col 4[57-59]), and the secondary-side PCB is disposed on a side of the secondary-side core facing away from the partition wall within the secondary-side space ("secondary side circuit on the second power board 406", Fig 4A-B, Col 5[27-28]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the power converter in Mayer, as taught by Kippley, as it provides the advantage of reduced overall size and footprint (Col 5[58-60] of Kippley).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Sheehan (US 11646145 B2), and further in view of Yang (US 20200117256 A1) and Tamura (US 20220103075 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mayer, Sheehan, and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches the primary-side core (primary side core is contained within cover 301, Fig 3, [0037] of Yang) and the secondary-side core (secondary side core is contained within cover 301a, Fig 3, [0037] of Yang).
The combination of Mayer, Sheehan, and Yang does not teach further comprising two pairs of elastic pressing parts to maintain a distance.
Tamura teaches a conventional way to connect magnetic cores to a wall in a power converter (see Fig 25) including two pairs of elastic pressing parts (pressing member 61 is a spring that presses core member 43 and/or core member 44 against the first portion of the housing 9, which can be a plate/wall, Fig 25, [0043 & 0167-9]) to maintain a distance between [cores] (pressing member 61 presses against core member 43 and/or core member 44 connecting it to housing 9a, and with each core being pressed against opposite sides of the wall the distance between the cores would be maintained, Fig 25, [0169]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the elastic pressing part in Yang, as taught by Tamura, as it provides the advantage of providing a way to connect a magnetic core to a wall ([0169] of Tamura).
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 JENNIFER C CAULK whose telephone number is (571)270-0623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30, every other Fri off.
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 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.
/J.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 10/05/2026
