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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 19 Sep 2023 and 6 Oct 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: Fig 2 does not show where 112 ends and 110 begins. It appears that 110 is overall an I-shaped piece. Horizontal lines and different shading pattern should be used for 112 to clearly delineate its boundaries.
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.
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 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.” Fig 2 shows partition wall 112 oriented in the vertical direction (the last paragraph on page 11 of the Specification says, "partition wall 112 may be provided inside the main body 110 to vertically separate the primary-side space 111 and the secondary-side space 113"), so the vertical length of 110/12 is depicted as shorter than the horizontal dimension of 110 (the length between the side plates 120). Additionally, to minimize the installation surface of this device, 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).
Claim 12: the limitation “"further comprising an elastic pressing part maintaining a distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core." Fig 2 shows four elastic pressing parts that provide tension to each core to press them against the vertical partition 112, thereby maintaining the distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core. Two 15s keep the primary-side core pressed against one side of 112. Two 16s keep the secondary-side core pressed against the other side of 112. The 15s and 16s are required to maintain the distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core.
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 11, last paragraph: "partition wall 112 may be provided inside the main body 110 to vertically separate the primary-side space 111 and the secondary-side space 113" is not consistent with Fig 2, which depicts the vertical length of 110/12 as shorter than the horizontal dimension of 110 (the length between the side plates 120).
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).
Page 5, last paragraph: "an elastic pressing part maintaining a distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core" does not match the number of parts 15 & 16 required to perform the function, as described later in the Specification on pages 11, 13-14. If only a single 15 or 16 were included in the design, only one core would be securely fastened, while the other core may be able to move further from the wall and core on the other side of the partition.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “A enclosure” should be replaced with “An enclosure”.
Claim 10: "wherein the primary-side core and the secondary-side core are disposed on the partition wall side" should be replaced with language that clearly specifies that the primary-side core is within the primary-side space and, similarly, that the secondary-side core is within the secondary-side space. For example, "wherein the primary-side core is disposed on the partition wall side of the primary-side space, and the secondary-side core is disposed on the partition wall side of the secondary-side space."
Claim 11: "wherein the primary-side PCB and the secondary-side PCB are disposed on opposite sides of the primary-side core and the secondary-side core, respectively" is not clear because it does not specify to what the PCBs are opposite, otherwise it appears that the primary-side PCB may be connected to, for example, the bottom of the primary-side core while the secondary-side core is connected to the top of the secondary-side core. To make it more clear, each PCB and what it is opposite to should be stated. For example, "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 the opposite side of the secondary-side space from the secondary-side core."
Claim 12: "further comprising an elastic pressing part maintaining a distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core" should be replaced with language that accurately reflects the multiple elastic pressing parts (15 and 16) described in the Specification on pages 11, 13-14 and depicted in Fig 2 to ensure that the distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core is kept constant. For example, "further comprising two pairs of elastic pressing parts to maintain a distance between the primary-side core and the secondary-side core."
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 8-9 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 8: the limitation “wherein the main body has 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” is not clear consistent with the drawings or specification as described above. 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.
Regarding Claim 9, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 8 above because it inherits the same deficiencies.
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, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang (US 20200117256 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches enclosure (1001, 1003, Fig 11 & 13), for an isolated converter (100, Fig 1), comprising: a main body (1001, 1003, Fig 11 & 13) having a primary-side space (X, the side of the case 1001/1003 that 42 fits into, see Fig 10 modified below with additional reference characters) and a secondary-side space (Y, the side of the case 1001/1003 that 43 fits into, see Fig 10 modified below with additional reference characters), wherein the main body comprises: a partition wall provided to vertically separate the primary-side space and the secondary-side space from each other (205, Fig 2); and an upper wall (1003, Fig 13) and a lower wall (1001, Fig 13) provided above and below the partition wall, respectively (1001 is shown below 42 and 43 in Fig 10, and 1003 is shown on top of 42 and 43 in Fig 13).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches further comprising side plates provided on both sides of the main body (vertical protrusions from 1001 and 1003, Fig 11 & 13).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the main body has a length in the vertical direction shorter than a length in the horizontal direction body (the length of 1001/1003 in the vertical direction is shorter than the length in the horizontal direction as shown in the modified version of Fig 10 below with reference directions added, Fig 10 & 13).
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 2, 4 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20200117256 A1) in view of Jedlitschka (US 6115236 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Yang does not teach 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 Yang, 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further teaches the outside of the side plates (vertical protrusions from 1001 and 1003, Fig 11 & 13).
Yang does not teach further comprising input/output terminals.
Jedlitschka teaches a conventional HT power supply unit modular support for use with an enclosed isolated converter (see Fig 2) including input/output terminals (52 is a rectangular base on the side of case 20/20' that connects to the HT receptacles 60, Fig 2) provided on the outside of the side plate.
Jedlitschka does not teach a second plate.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang to incorporate a second plate on the opposite side.
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 terminals in Yang, as taught by Jedlitschka, as it provides the advantages of avoiding the concentration of strong electric fields and therefore the risks of arc discharges while reducing manufacturing costs (Col 5, lines 42-46 of Jedlitschka).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yang and Jedlitschka teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further teaches 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).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yang and Jedlitschka teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further teaches wherein the primary-side core and the secondary-side core are disposed on the partition wall side (retaining wall 205 is attached to the primary side 201 and the secondary side 203, Fig 2 of Yang).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20200117256 A1) in view of Jedlitschka (US 6115236 A), and further in view of Tamura (US 20220103075 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yang and Jedlitschka teaches all of the limitations of Claims 1 to 8, and further teaches the primary-side core (primary side core is contained within cover 301, Fig 3, [0037]) and the secondary-side core (secondary side core is contained within cover 301a, Fig 3, [0037]).
The combination of Yang and Jedlitschka does not teach further comprising an elastic pressing part maintaining a distance.
Tamura teaches a conventional way to connect magnetic cores to a wall in a power converter (see Fig 25) including an elastic pressing part (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]) maintaining 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 & 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Claim Objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 5, Yang teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Yang does not teach “wherein the primary-side space and the secondary-side space are defined by the upper wall, the lower wall and the partition wall.”
Prior art Jedlitschka (US 6115236 A) and Tamura (US 20220103075 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the primary-side space and the secondary-side space are defined by the upper wall, the lower wall and the partition wall.”
Regarding Claim 6, Yang teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Yang does not teach “further comprising 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.”
Prior art Jedlitschka (US 6115236 A) and Tamura (US 20220103075 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “further comprising 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.”
Claim 7 is indicated as allowable, as it depends on Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Yang and Jedlitschka teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9.
The combination of Yang and Jedlitschka does not teach “wherein the primary-side PCB and the secondary-side PCB are disposed on opposite sides of the primary-side core and the secondary-side core, respectively.”
Prior art Jedlitschka (US 6115236 A) and Tamura (US 20220103075 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the primary-side PCB and the secondary-side PCB are disposed on opposite sides of the primary-side core and the secondary-side core, respectively.”
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
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838