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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4 & 6-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 8: the limitation "wherein the main body has a first length in a first direction longer than a second length in a second direction so that an area of a bottom surface facing an installation surface is minimized”. Fig 2 shows side plates 120 that get mounted to an installation surface. The distance between side plates is the first length. The length into the page that the side plates extend would be the second length. The third dimension, or third length, would be from the top of the upper wall to the lower wall. First length > second length > third length. To minimize the installation surface of this device, it appears one would orient the smallest dimensions downward by rotating the main body 110 90 by degrees to orient the primary-side space to be on top and the secondary-side space to be on the bottom (partition 112 would be a horizontal wall), and the side plates would be attached to what are currently designated in the instant application as "upper wall" and "lower wall" (but in this modified configuration would become the left and right sides of 110).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4, last paragraph through the first paragraph of page 5: "The main body of the enclosure for an isolated converter according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may have a length in the vertical direction longer than a length in the horizontal direction so that an area of a bottom surface facing an installation surface is minimized." However, to minimize the installation surface, it appears one would turn main body 110 90 degrees to orient the primary-side space to be on top and the secondary-side space to be on the bottom (partition 112 would be a horizontal wall), and the side plates would be attached to what are currently designated in the instant application as "upper wall" and "lower wall" (but in this modified configuration would become the left and right sides of 110).
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.
Claim 8 & 11 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.
Claim 8: recites the limitation “so that an area of a bottom surface facing an installation surface is minimized” is unclear. The term “minimized” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification briefly mentions the bottom surface facing an installation surface is minimized, it does not explain how one would ascertain that the surface has been “minimized”. The appended “so that” clause introduces a functional result that may or may not impose additional structural limitations beyond the aspect ratio. It is unclear whether the claim requires only that one dimension exceeds the other, or whether additional structural features are needed to achieve the stated minimization. Additionally, it appears that if the enclosure of Fig 2 were rotated 90 degrees and the side plates were then attached to 114 and 116, the installation surface would be even smaller, leading to more confusion as to what the limitation is supposed to mean. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean that the main body has a length in the vertical direction shorter than a length in the horizontal direction body.
Claim 8: recites the limitation “the side plates” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to be the side plates inherited from claim 3.
Claim 11: recites the limitation “wherein the primary-side PCB is disposed on the opposite side of the primary-side space from the primary-side core, and the secondary-side PCB is disposed on opposite sides of the secondary-side space from the secondary-side core, respectively.” This is unclear because it would mean that the PCB is attached to the wall opposite of the partition wall, rather than the opposite side of the core as depicted in Fig 2. To make it clearer, each PCB and what it is attached to should be stated. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean that 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.
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, 3-4, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mayer (US 4639834 A).
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).
Regarding Claim 3, Mayer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses 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]).
Regarding Claim 4, Mayer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3, and further discloses 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]).
Regarding Claim 8, Mayer discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, and further has a first length in a first direction longer than a second length in a second direction so that an area of a bottom surface facing an installation surface is minimized (sides 11 & 12 of 10 are longer than the shorter sides of 10 [top and bottom as shown in Fig 1], Fig 1), wherein the first direction is a direction connecting side plates when the side plates are coupled to both sides of the main body (sides 11 & 12 of 10 connect to 71 that encloses the converter, Fig 1), and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction in a horizontal plane (the shorter sides of 10 [top and bottom as shown in Fig 1] are perpendicular to sides 11 & 12, Fig 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.
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 overvoltage protection circuit 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 6-7 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 6, 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); 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)
Mayer does not disclose a first stepped portion provided from the partition wall to form a step difference 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 provided from the partition wall to form a step difference with the upper wall and the lower wall (310 protrudes from wall 300, Fig 2), 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 spaces of Mayer to ensure symmetrical isolation, Fig 2).
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 of Sheehan).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mayer and Sheehan teaches 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) 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]), 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 spaces of Mayer to ensure symmetrical isolation, Fig 2).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Yang (US 20200117256 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Mayer discloses an isolated converter, comprising: an enclosure according to claim 1.
Mayer 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 and Yang teaches an enclosure according to claim 1; a primary-side core (primary side core is contained within cover 301, Fig 3, [0037] of Yang) 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 of Yang); and a secondary-side core (secondary side core is contained within cover 301a, Fig 3, [0037] of Yang) 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 above, Fig 4 of Yang).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4639834 A) in view of Yang (US 20200117256 A1), and further in view of Kippley (US 8897029 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mayer and Yang teaches all of the limitations of claim 9.
The combination of Mayer and Yang does not teach wherein the primary-side PCB is disposed on the opposite side of the primary-side space from the primary-side core, and the secondary-side PCB is disposed on opposite sides of the secondary-side space from the secondary-side core, respectively.
Kippley teaches a conventional power converter (see Fig 4A-B) including wherein the primary-side PCB is disposed on the opposite side of the primary-side space from the primary-side core ("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 opposite sides of the secondary-side space from the secondary-side core, respectively ("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 Yang (US 20200117256 A1), and further in view of Tamura (US 20220103075 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mayer 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 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
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 5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights