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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the Amendment filed on June 25, 2026. Accordingly, claims 12 and 20 are cancelled; claims 1-11, 13-19, 21 and newly added claim 22 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicants’ arguments from the third paragraph at the bottom of page 8 to the third paragraph at page 10 of the Remarks, filed June 25, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Ikushima et al. (US 2019/0331724 A1) and Dobrenko et al. (US 2014/0021939 A1).
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claim 21, this claim presents a current leakage detection method according to the current detection circuit of claim 1. Therefore, the argument made against claim 1 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 21. In addition, it is clearly seen that claim 21 is a process claim which presents a process of using the current detection circuit as claimed in claim 1.
With regard to claims 1-9, 21 and 22, it is clear that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a first winding”, “a magnetic induction coil”, and “a lead”) are all external elements, which are not a part of the current detection circuit as claimed; therefore, the recited features have no patentable significance since it would both not have modified the operation of the claimed current detection circuit and be an obvious matter of design choice.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 is 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.
There are two separate requirements set forth in the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. 112:
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
With regard to claims 2 and 13, it is noted that a value is a static piece of data, and a signal is a dynamic wrapper or carrier that actively tracks a value over time and notifies the system whenever that value changes (emphasis added). It is clear that “an absolute value” and a “reference signal” are two different entities. Therefore, it is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art how to compare “an absolute value” to a “reference signal” (emphasis added).
The essential purpose of patent examination is to determine whether or not the claims are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. Therefore, the uncertainties of claim scope should be removed as much as possible.
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)(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 1-7, 10, 11, 14-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikushima et al.
Ikushima et al. teaches a DC leakage detector comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
568
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
704
1052
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 21, a current detection circuit (FIG. 1, DC leakage detector 2) for determining whether there is leakage current in a lead (FIG. 1, conductors 4) passed through a magnetic induction coil (FIG. 1, second core 21) that comprises a first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22), wherein the current detection circuit (FIG. 1, DC leakage detector 2) comprises an excitation module (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23) and a comparison module (FIG. 1, current-detecting resistor 24, DC component detection unit 25, and second decision unit 26), wherein the excitation module (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23) is configured to be connected to the first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22), and the comparison module (FIG. 1, current-detecting resistor 24, DC component detection unit 25, and second decision unit 26) is connected to the excitation module (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23); the excitation module (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23) is configured to output an excitation signal (AC excitation voltage) to the first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22) and receive a feedback signal (FIG. 1, detection voltage Vd) induced by the first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22); the comparison module (FIG. 1, current-detecting resistor 24, DC component detection unit 25, and second decision unit 26) is configured to determine whether there is leakage current in the lead (FIG. 1, conductors 4) based on the feedback signal (FIG. 1, detection voltage Vd) induced by the first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22) and a preset reference signal (threshold voltage Vth and/or second threshold value V2) (For more details, please read: Abstract, and paragraphs: [0017]-[0021] and [0031]-[0070]).
With regard to claim 10, a charging system (charging control unit) (Paragraph: [0018]) comprising a charging device (charging cable, charging connector, power cable, and power plug), a magnetic induction coil (FIG. 1, second core 21), a control circuit (charging controller), and the current detection circuit (FIG. 1, DC leakage detector 2) according to claim 1; the current detection circuit (FIG. 1, DC leakage detector 2) is connected to the magnetic induction coil (FIG. 1, second core 21) and the control circuit (charging controller), respectively, and the control circuit (charging controller) is connected to the charging device (charging cable, charging connector, power cable, and power plug) through a first lead (FIG. 1, conductors 4) which passes through the magnetic induction coil (FIG. 1, second core 21); the current detection circuit (FIG. 1, DC leakage detector 2) is configured to output an indication signal (FIGS. 1 and 4, output signal of the OR circuit 3) when it is determined that there is leakage current in the first lead (FIG. 1, conductors 4); the control circuit (charging controller) is configured to control the charging device (charging cable, charging connector, power cable, and power plug) to stop supplying electric energy to the outside upon receipt of the indication signal (FIGS. 1 and 4, output signal of the OR circuit 3), and control the charging device (charging cable, charging connector, power cable, and power plug) to supply electric energy to the outside upon no receipt of the indication signal (FIGS. 1 and 4, output signal of the OR circuit 3) (For more details, please read: Abstract, and paragraphs: [0017]-[0021] and [0031]-[0070]).
With regard to claims 3 and 14, the excitation module (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23) comprises a signal generator (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23, a positive feedback oscillator circuit) configured to generating the excitation signal (AC excitation voltage) (Paragraph: [0038]).
With regard to claims 4 and 15, the excitation module (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23) further comprises a voltage dividing unit (FIG. 1, voltage divider including resistors 234 and 235) connected between the signal generator (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23, a positive feedback oscillator circuit) and the first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22); the voltage dividing unit (FIG. 1, voltage divider including resistors 234 and 235) is configured to perform voltage division processing on the excitation signal (AC excitation voltage) before the excitation signal (AC excitation voltage) is output to the first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22) (Paragraph: [0052]).
With regard to claims 5 and 16, the comparison module (FIG. 1, current-detecting resistor 24, DC component detection unit 25, and second decision unit 26) comprises a comparison unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, DC component detection unit 25a); the comparison unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, DC component detection unit 25a) is configured to: determine an effective signal (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, voltage obtained through conversion by the current-detecting resistor 24 at the inverting input terminal of the operational amplifier 2551) and an interference signal (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, interference signal removed by filter 27 from voltage obtained through conversion by the current-detecting resistor 24 at the inverting input terminal of the operational amplifier 2551) in the feedback signal (FIG. 1, detection voltage Vd), and amplify the effective signal (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, voltage obtained through conversion by the current-detecting resistor 24 at the inverting input terminal of the operational amplifier 2551) to obtain a first signal (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, second voltage signal output from DC component detection unit 25a); determine whether there is leakage current in the lead (FIG. 1, conductors 4) based on the first signal (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, second voltage signal output from DC component detection unit 25a) and the reference signal (second threshold value V2); and output a second signal (second output signal) if it is determined that there is leakage current in the lead (FIG. 1, conductors 4) (Paragraphs: [0055]-[0057] and [0072]-[0074]).
With regard to claims 6 and 17, the comparison module (FIG. 1, current-detecting resistor 24, DC component detection unit 25, and second decision unit 26) further comprises a first operational amplifier unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, operational amplifier 2551) connected between the comparison unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, DC component detection unit 25a) and the excitation module (FIG. 1, excitation unit 23); the first operational amplifier unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, operational amplifier 2551) is configured to perform signal amplification processing on the feedback signal (FIG. 1, detection voltage Vd) before the effective signal (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, voltage obtained through conversion by the current-detecting resistor 24 at the inverting input terminal of the operational amplifier 2551) and the interference signal (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, interference signal removed by filter 27 from voltage obtained through conversion by the current-detecting resistor 24 at the inverting input terminal of the operational amplifier 2551) in the feedback signal (FIG. 1, detection voltage Vd) are determined (Paragraphs: [0055]-[0057] and [0072]-[0074]).
With regard to claims 7 and 18, the comparison module (FIG. 1, current-detecting resistor 24, DC component detection unit 25, and second decision unit 26) further comprises a second operational amplifier unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, operational amplifier included in second decision unit 26) connected to the comparison unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, DC component detection unit 25a); the second operational amplifier unit (FIG. 4 in view of FIG. 1, operational amplifier included in second decision unit 26) is configured to perform power amplification processing on the second signal (second output signal) (Paragraphs: [0055]-[0057] and [0072]-[0074]).
With regard to claim 11, the first lead (FIG. 1, conductors 4) comprises a neutral line and a live line (since conductors 4 electrically connect the power cable and the charging cable together) (Paragraphs: [0018]-[0019]).
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 8, 9, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikushima et al. in view of Dobrenko et al.
Ikushima et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1-7, 10, 11, 14-18 and 21 above including the current detection circuit (FIG. 1, DC leakage detector 2), the magnetic induction coil (FIG. 1, second core 21) and the first winding (FIG. 1, excitation coil 22), but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
An auxiliary module, and the magnetic induction coil further comprises a second winding; the auxiliary module is configured to be connected to the second winding; the auxiliary module is configured to output a preset current signal to the second winding at an initialization stage where no current passes through the lead, so as to determine whether the excitation module and the comparison module can work normally, wherein the preset current signal changes a magnetic field generated by the excitation signal when the excitation module inputs the excitation signal into the first winding.
Dobrenko et al. teaches a current measuring device comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
566
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 8, 19 and 22, an auxiliary module (FIG. 3, calibration device 13), and a magnetic induction coil (FIG. 3, magnetic loop 2) comprises a second winding (FIG. 3, calibration coil 16); the auxiliary module (FIG. 3, calibration device 13) is configured to be connected to the second winding (FIG. 3, calibration coil 16); the auxiliary module (FIG. 3, calibration device 13) is configured to output a preset current signal (defined current ITest) to the second winding (FIG. 3, calibration coil 16) at an initialization stage where no current (current source 15 is switched off) passes through a lead (FIG. 3, conductor L), so as to determine whether an excitation module (FIG. 3, excitation device 3) and a comparison module (FIG. 3, determining means 9) can work normally (“a calibration of the current-measuring device can be carried out at any time, and thus a higher level of precision of the measuring result can be achieved”), wherein the preset current signal (defined current ITest) changes a magnetic field generated by the excitation signal when the excitation module (FIG. 3, excitation device 3) inputs the excitation signal into a first winding (FIG. 3, exciting coil 6) (Paragraphs: [0026], [0043]-[0046], and [0057]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DC leakage detector of Ikushima et al. to use an auxiliary module configured to output a preset current signal to a second winding as taught by Dobrenko et al. since Dobrenko et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to carry out a calibration of a current measuring device at any time, and thus a higher level of precision of the measuring result can be achieved as disclosed in paragraph [0026].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Shima et al. (US 12,567,536 B2) teaches an ignition coil assembly with internal diagnostic features.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights