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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the prior rejections of record and United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20060076838 to Solveson et al.
As detailed in the rejections below, Solveson discloses “wherein the coil extends helically about a central axis, wherein the central axis is parallel to a plane defined by an upper surface of the busbar”: the coil (8) extends helically about a central axis (best shown in the exploded view of figure 2 as a dashed line central to the coil 8) and the central axis is parallel to a plane defined by the upper surface of the busbar (element 4 in figure 5).
As such, all claims stand rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20100301835 to Kasajima in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20150253412 to Jost et al., United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20200292589 to Kraemer et al., and United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20060076838 to Solveson et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kasajima teaches a apparatus, comprising: a current sensor (figure 4 elements 3 & 4 collectively, ¶ [0051]) coupled to a busbar (figure 4 element 2, ¶ [0051]), the current sensor comprising a coil (figure 4 element 4, ¶ [0053]), wherein a current flowing through the busbar generates a first magnetic field detectable by the current sensor (¶ [0051]), wherein the coil is operable to generate a second magnetic field (¶ [0054]), and the current sensor will receive part of the second magnetic field, superposed to the first magnetic field (¶ [0055]).
But Kasajima does not disclose explicitly orienting the coil.
However, Jost teaches orienting the coil (¶ [0023]: “FIG. 1b illustrates further examples in which the magnetic self test field 108 may be oriented in parallel or anti-parallel to a current direction 120 which is the direction in which a current passes through the sensing element 102. . . . According to some examples, one sensor signal of the first sensor signal 110a and the second sensor signal 110b is determined while the magnetic self-test field 108 is applied or superimposed, as illustrated in FIG. 1a.”).
It 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 to orient the coil per Jost in order to provide additional data points for self-test evaluation without increasing the physical footprint of the apparatus, thereby making the self-test inherently more reliable.
But Kasajima in view of Jost does not teach explicitly a current sensor directly coupled to a busbar.
However, Kraemer teaches a current sensor directly coupled to a busbar (¶ [0065]).
It 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 to directly couple the current sensor to the busbar of Kasajima in view of Jost as suggested by Kraemer in order to alleviate the need for an intermediary PCB, thereby providing manufacturing cost savings and simplicity.
But Kasajima in view of Jost and Kraemer does not teach explicitly wherein the coil extends helically about a central axis, wherein the central axis is parallel to a plane defined by an upper surface of the busbar.
However, Solveson teaches wherein the coil (8) extends helically about a central axis (best shown in the exploded view of figure 2 as a dashed line central to the coil 8), wherein the central axis is parallel to a plane defined by an upper surface of the busbar (figure 5 element 4).
It 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 to orient the coil parallel to the busbar as required by Solveson in order to provide a relatively better path for magnetic flux to link the coil and the sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Kasajima in view of Jost, Kraemer, and Solveson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Kasajima further teaches comprising a controller operable with the current sensor, the controller operable to:
receive the sum of the first and second magnetic fields (¶¶ [0055]-[0056]); and
convert the sum of the first and second magnetic fields to a voltage Vsense+Vdiag, wherein a discriminator removes Vsense, keeping Viag only ((¶¶ [0055]-[0056]: “Specifically, the controller 10 controls a value of electric current to flow in the coil 4 such that the magnetic field generated by the current bar 2 is offset by the magnetic field generated by the coil 4 so that the value of the magnetic field detected by the magnetic sensor 3 becomes "0".”).
Regarding claim 4, Kasajima in view of Jost, Kraemer, and Solveson teaches the apparatus of claim 3, and Jost further teaches wherein the controller is further operable to determine if the sensor is operating properly given an invariable position of the coil relative to the current sensor, and a selected voltage threshold level (¶ [0028]: “This may allow to reuse already existing circuitry in order to provide for the possibility to self-testing and to indicate whether the current sensor 100 is in a safe or reliable mode of operation or not.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kasajima teaches a current sensing device, comprising: a busbar (figure 4 element 2, ¶ [0051]); and
a current sensor (figure 4 elements 3 & 4 collectively, ¶ [0051]) coupled to the busbar, the current sensor comprising a coil (figure 4 element 4, ¶ [0053]), wherein a current flowing through the busbar generates a first magnetic field detectable by the current sensor (¶ [0051]), wherein the coil is operable to generate a second magnetic field (¶ [0054]), the current sensor will receive part of the second magnetic field, superposed to the first magnetic field (¶ [0055]).
But Kasajima does not teach explicitly orienting the coil.
However, Jost teaches orienting the coil (¶ [0023]: “FIG. 1b illustrates further examples in which the magnetic self test field 108 may be oriented in parallel or anti-parallel to a current direction 120 which is the direction in which a current passes through the sensing element 102. . . . According to some examples, one sensor signal of the first sensor signal 110a and the second sensor signal 110b is determined while the magnetic self-test field 108 is applied or superimposed, as illustrated in FIG. 1a.”).
It 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 to orient the coil per Jost in order to provide additional data points for self-test evaluation without increasing the physical footprint of the apparatus, thereby making the self-test inherently more reliable.
But Kasajima in view of Jost does not teach explicitly a current sensor directly coupled to a busbar.
However, Kraemer teaches a current sensor directly coupled to a busbar (¶ [0065]).
It 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 to directly couple the current sensor to the busbar of Kasajima in view of Jost as suggested by Kraemer in order to alleviate the need for an intermediary PCB, thereby providing manufacturing cost savings and simplicity.
But Kasajima in view of Jost and Kraemer does not teach explicitly wherein the coil extends helically about a central axis, wherein the central axis is parallel to a plane defined by an upper surface of the busbar.
However, Solveson teaches wherein the coil (8) extends helically about a central axis (best shown in the exploded view of figure 2 as a dashed line central to the coil 8), wherein the central axis is parallel to a plane defined by an upper surface of the busbar (figure 5 element 4).
It 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 to orient the coil parallel to the busbar as required by Solveson in order to provide a relatively better path for magnetic flux to link the coil and the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights