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
The amendment filed on 2026-07-27 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-16 and 19-20 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependents 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.
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 1-5, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al (JP-2013122400-A – refer to machine translation attached in the office action dated 2025-12-18 for references cited) in view of Jung et al. (KR-101225515-B1 – From applicant IDS – refer to machine translation attached in the office action dated 2025-08-12 for references cited) in view of Okumura, Ken et al. (US-20140176123-A1 – referred to as “Ken”).
Regarding Claim 1, Jung teaches an electrical device comprising:
a printed circuit board (Fig 5: PCB, 50),
a plurality of sensors (Fig 2 shows a plurality of detection units, 30, Para [0022] teaches the detection units detect the strength of magnetic fields and are therefore magnetic sensors) mounted on said printed circuit board (Can be seen in Fig 2) and projecting from the printed circuit board (Can be seen in Fig 2), and
a sensor protection component (Fig 2: holder, 40) comprising a plurality of housings (Refer to annotated Fig 2 of Okumura) in which each respective sensor of the plurality of sensors are housed (Can be seen in Figure 2),
wherein the sensor protection component comprises at least one press fit extending through the printed circuit board and fixing said sensor protection component on the printed circuit board (Para [0027] with reference to Figure 2, teaches a press-fit protrusion, 43, into the PCB, 50), and
wherein each housing of the plurality of housings of the sensor protection component comprises a first opening facing the printed circuit board and a lower opening opposite to the first opening (Refer to Annotated Fig 5 of Okumura).
Okumura does not teach the sensor protection component comprising a snap fit. However, Jung teaches a snap fit (Fig 4: coupling hook & split gap, 520 & 521). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the press fit protrusion of Okumura for a snap fit of Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a press fit protrusion and snap fit protrusion are known equivalents and the substitution would have the predictable result of attaching a housing or similar structure to a PCB, as taught in both prior art references.
The combination of Okumura in view of Jung does not teach said first opening having a frustoconical shape. However, Ken teaches first opening having a frustoconical shape allowing for centering the sensor when entering said housing (Can be seen in Figure 7, the opening of the housing, 40, facing the substrate, 90, is frustoconical in shape). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Okumura in view of Jung, to have the frustoconical shape facing the circuit board as taught in Ken. A motivation for this modification is frustoconical shapes make it easier to insert objects into spaces, as taught by Okumura in Para [0030] and an opening facing the board allows for the fixing of the sensor to the board and placing the housing onto the board as taught by Ken in Para [0032].
Regarding Claim 2, Okumura further teaches the protection component is mounted and fixed on the printed circuit board (Para [0027] with reference to Figure 2, teaches a press-fit protrusion, 43, into the PCB, 50, fixing the holder, 40, to the PCB).
Regarding Claim 3, Okumura further teaches wherein the sensor comprises a body and at least one connection pin projecting from the body (Fig 2: lead wire, 32) and connected to the printed circuit board so that the body extends at a distance from the printed circuit board (Can be seen in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Okumura further teaches wherein the sensor is mounted on the printed circuit board by through-hole technology (Can be seen in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Okumura further teaches wherein the sensor protection component comprises at least one pin extending through the printed circuit board and allowing a positioning of said sensor protection component on the printed circuit board (Para [0027] with reference to Figure 2, teaches a press-fit protrusion, 43, into the PCB, 50).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Okumura
PNG
media_image2.png
522
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of Okumura
Regarding Claim 12, Okumura further teaches mounting a sensor (Fig 2: detection unit, 30) on a printed circuit board (Fig 2 shows the detection units, 30, mounted on the PCB, 50), and
mounting a sensor protection component (Fig 2: holder, 40) on the printed circuit board for positioning the sensor inside a housing of the sensor protection component (Refer to Annotated Fig 2 of Okumura).
Regarding Claim 14, Okumura further teaches wherein the sensor comprises a body (unlabeled but can be seen in Fig 2) and at least one connection pin projecting from the body (Fig 2: lead wire, 32) and connected to the printed circuit board so that the body extends at a distance from the printed circuit board (can be seen in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Okumura further teaches wherein the sensor is mounted on the printed circuit board by through-hole technology (can be seen in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Okumura further teaches wherein the sensor protection component comprises at least one pin extending through the printed circuit board and allowing a positioning of said sensor protection component on the printed circuit board (Para [0027] with reference to Figure 2, teaches a press-fit protrusion, 43, into the PCB, 50).
Claims 8-11, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara (US-20140140119-A1) in view of Okumura in view of Jung in view of Ken.
Regarding Claim 8, Shinohara teaches an inverter (Fig 2: inverter, 200) comprising:
input terminals (Fig 2: DC terminals, 157 & 158),
output terminals (Fig 2: AC terminal, 188),
controllable switches (Fig 2: IGBTs, 328 and 330, Para [0047] teaches the IGBTs being controlled by the driver circuit, 174) connected to the input terminals and to the output terminals (Can be seen in Fig 2), and
an electrical device, configured to control the controllable switches (Para [0049] teaches a power semiconductor device used for switching, Para [0007] teaches current sensor output detection signals driving the power semiconductor device, Additionally Fig 2 shows a current sensor module, 180 with connection through the control circuit, 172, to the diver circuit, 174, which controls the switches, IGBT 328 & 330) so as to convert a DC voltage at the input terminals into an AC voltage at the output terminals (Para [0007]). Shinohara does not teach an electrical device according to claim 1.
However, Okumura in view of Jung in view of Ken teaches an electrical device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inverter of Shinohara to incorporate the electrical device of the combination. A motivation for this modification is to protect the current sensing module as taught in Jung in Para [0030].
Regarding Claim 9, Shinohara further teaches an inverter further comprising a magnetic core (Fig 27: sensor core, 51) around one of the output terminals (Fig 27 shows core going around an AC busbar, 802U, Fig 2 shows busbars, 802, connected to the output terminals, 188), said magnetic core being provided with an air gap (air gap can be seen in Fig 27), and wherein the sensor extends in the air gap (Can be seen in Fig 27).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Shinohara in view of Okumura in view of Jung in view of Ken as presented with respect to claim 8 further teaches an electric drive (Shinohara - Figure 2, in its entirety) comprising an inverter according to claim 8 (See claim 8 rejection), and an electric motor driven by the inverter (Shinohara - Fig 2: motor, MG1). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 11, Shinohara further teaches a vehicle (Can be seen in Fig 1 comprising the DEF, TM, MG1, TSM and EGN) comprising wheels (Though unlabeled, wheels can be seen in Fig 1, See annotated Fig 1 of Shinohara) and an electric drive according to claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection) for driving, at least indirectly, at least one of the wheels (Para [0038] teaches a motor, MG1, driving a wheel through the transmission, TM, and differential gear, DEF).
Regarding Claim 13, Shinohara teaches a method for manufacturing an inverter, comprising:
manufacturing a power module (Fig 2: inverter circuit, 140) comprising input terminals (Fig 2: DC terminals, 157 & 158), output terminals (Fig 2: AC terminal, 188), and controllable switches (Fig 2: IGBTs, 328 and 330, Para [0047] teaches the IGBTs being controlled by the driver circuit, 174) connected to the input terminals and to the output terminals (Can be seen in Fig 2),
manufacturing an electrical device (Fig 2: current sensor module, 180) being a control device of the power module (Fig 2: inverter circuit, 140),
mounting a magnetic core (Fig 27: sensor core, 51) provided with an air gap (air gap can be seen in Fig 27) around at least one of the output terminals (Fig 27 shows core going around an AC busbar, 802U, Fig 2 shows busbars, 802, connected to the output terminals, 188),
mounting the electrical device on the power module, so that the sensor extends in the air gap of the magnetic core (Can be seen in Fig 27), and
connecting the control device to the power module (Fig 2 shows connections from the sensor module, 180, to the control circuit, 172, and driver circuit, 174, which is connected to the power module, 140) to control the controllable switches (Para [0049] teaches a power semiconductor device used for switching, Para [0007] teaches current sensor output detection signals driving the power semiconductor device, Additionally Fig 2 shows a current sensor module, 180 with connection through the control circuit, 172, to the diver circuit, 174, which controls the switches, IGBT 328 & 330) so as to convert a DC voltage at the input terminals into an AC voltage at the output terminals (Para [0007]).
Shinohara does not teach an electrical device according to in claim 12. However, Okumura in view of Jung in view of Ken teaches a control device according to claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrical device of Shinohara to incorporate the electrical device of the combination. A motivation for this modification is to protect the current sensing module as taught in Jung in Para [0030].
Regarding Claim 19, Shinohara teaches an inverter comprising:
input terminals (Fig 2: DC terminals, 157 & 158),
output terminals (Fig 2: AC terminal, 188),
controllable switches (Fig 2: IGBTs, 328 and 330, Para [0047] teaches the IGBTs being controlled by the driver circuit, 174) connected to the input terminals and to the output terminals (Can be seen in Fig 2), and
an electrical device, configured to control the controllable switches (Para [0049] teaches a power semiconductor device used for switching, Para [0007] teaches current sensor output detection signals driving the power semiconductor device, Additionally Fig 2 shows a current sensor module, 180 with connection to the control circuit, 172, which controls the switches) so as to convert a DC voltage at the input terminals into an AC voltage at the output terminals (Para [0007]).
Shinohara does not teach an electrical device according to claim 2. However, Okumura in view of Jung in view of Ken teaches an electrical device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inverter of Shinohara to incorporate the electrical device of the combination. A motivation for this modification is to protect the current sensing module as taught in Jung in Para [0030].
Regarding Claim 20, Shinohara further teaches an electric drive comprising an inverter according to claim 9, and an electric motor driven by the inverter (Fig 2: motor generator, MG1, Para [0039] teaches the inverter circuit driving the motor, MG1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura in view of Jung in view of Ken in further view of Aichriedler et al. (US-20190229640-A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Okumura in view of Jung in view of Ken teaches wherein the sensor protection component is formed from a single piece (Can be seen in Fig 2 of Okumura). The combination does not explicitly teach the sensor protection component is made of plastic. However, Aichriedler teaches a sensor protection component made of plastic (Para [0027] teaches a housing for a sensor made of plastic and Para [0047] teaches plastics are equivalent to other insulating materials). Jung does teach the housings (Fig 2-4: holder member, 500) made of a synthetic resin with excellent insulation (Para [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensor protection component of the combination to be made of an insulating material such as plastic as taught by Aichriedler as being no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 10:30-17:00 ET.
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 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights