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
This action is a response to the amendment filed by Applicant on 1/5/2026, which has been entered. Claims 1-6 are pending for examination.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 1/5/2026, with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claims.
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) 1-6 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., and further in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20200292589 to Kraemer 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.
Regarding claim 2, Kasajima in view of Jost and Kraemer teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Kasajima further teaches wherein the coil is oriented perpendicular to a direction of the current flowing through the busbar (figure 4: the coil 4 is oriented in a direction that is in and out of the page while the direction of the current flowing through the busbar is in a direction that is aligned with the page).
Regarding claim 3, Kasajima in view of Jost and Kraemer 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 and Kraemer 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.
Regarding claim 6, Kasajima in view of Jost and Kraemer teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Kasajima further teaches wherein the coil extends helically about an axis, wherein the axis is parallel to a plane defined by an upper surface of the busbar (figure 4: the axis of the helical windings of the coil 4 are parallel to the plane defined by the upper surface of the busbar 2, which is the surface farthest from the substrate 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20220397590 to Burghardt et al. discloses a current sensor including a current transferring conductor to conduct current and four magnetic field sensors with the magnetic field sensors being divided into two pairs of magnetic field sensors.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20220381805 to Zhao discloses a differential signal current sensor device including a conductor for conducting electrical current.
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 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