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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 § 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 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites: “disposing the sensing element in the protective case; disposing the protective case having the sensing element in the air gap of the magnetic core; and attaching the first housing to the second housing”. It is unclear how the first housing is further attached to the second housing since the sensing element (second housing) is already disposed in the protective case (first housing). The claim recites that the protective case having the sensing element is disposed in the air gap and therefore it appears that some attachment between the second housing (sensing element) and the first housing (protective case) is already made. It is unclear whether the claim is reciting that the magnetic core is attached to the sensing element after disposal in the air gap.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19 and therefore inherits its deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simonin, US 20170003325
Regarding claim 19, Simonin teaches a method for assembling an apparatus, the apparatus comprising a first housing and a second housing, the first housing comprising a magnetic core having a first end and a second end (Fig. 1b; magnetic core 4) and a protective case (Fig. 1b-2b; grounding device 8 with housing 10 ), the second housing comprising a sensing element (Fig. 1b-2b; magnetic field detector 5 ), wherein the magnetic core is formed into a substantially complete perimeter comprising a center opening (Fig. 14; core 4 has a center opening for a conductor), wherein an air gap is defined between the first end and the second end of the magnetic core(Fig. 1b; air gap 6), the method comprising:
disposing the sensing element in the protective case (Fig. 1a-1b; magnetic field detector 5 disposed in the grounding device 8 );
disposing the protective case having the sensing element in the air gap of the magnetic core (Fig. 1a-1b; insertion of the sensor arrangement in the air gap 6); and
attaching the first housing to the second housing (Fig. 1a-3d; contact 20 of grounding device elastically biases against the end face of magnetic core 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claeys, US 20160154027 in view of Simonin, US 20170003325
Regarding claim 1, Claeys discloses an apparatus comprising: a first housing comprising: a magnetic core having a first end and a second end (Figs. 1a-8a; magnetic core 6), wherein the magnetic core is formed into a substantially complete perimeter comprising a center opening (Fig. 1a-2a; core 6 being in circular shape and having a center opening), and wherein an air gap is defined between the first end and the second end of the magnetic core (Fig. 1a-8a; magnetic core gap 24); a protective case, wherein the protective case is disposed in the air gap of the magnetic core (Fig. 1a-8a; terminal connection portion 28 with magnetic sensor receiving cavity 37); and a second housing comprising: a sensing element (Fig. 1a-8a; magnetic field detector 8 ) wherein the sensing element is positioned such that in an instance in which the first housing is attached to the second housing, the protective case receives the sensing element (Fig. 1a-8a; mag field detector 8 inserted into receiving cavity 37, circuit board 12 and core housing 10 are attached as shown in fig. 6b).
Claeys is silent in wherein the protective case is removably disposed in the air gap. Simonin teaches wherein a protective case is removably disposed in an air gap of a magnetic core (Fig. 1b; magnetic sensor arrangement having a housing 10 is removed from air gap of core 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Simonin into Claeys for the benefit of providing a sensor that is compact and easy to assemble (¶[0009], Simonin).
Regarding claim 2, Claeys teaches wherein the protective case defines a partially enclosed space, wherein the protective case comprises a case opening, and wherein the protective case receives the sensing element through the case opening and into the partially enclosed space (Fig. 1a-8a; ).
Regarding claim 5, Claeys teaches wherein the protective case is removable (Fig. 1a-8a;).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, Claeys teaches wherein the first housing and the second housing are substantially similar in shape and wherein the first housing and the second housing are configured to attach forming a protective housing (Fig. 8a; cover part and base part 5 which are similar in shape and provide a protective housing).
Regarding claim 10, Claeys discloses the apparatus of claim 9, and wherein the protective housing forms an interior cavity substantially isolated from an exterior environment without the protective housing (Figs. 1a-8a).
Regarding claim 11, a first housing opening in the first housing ; and a second housing opening in the second housing (Fig. 8a; opening in base, board and cover parts 5, 12 and 7); wherein in an instance in which the first housing and the second housing are attached to form the protective housing the first housing opening and the second housing opening are substantially aligned forming a housing opening, and wherein the housing opening provides a passageway through the protective housing (Fig. 8a-8b; center of all parts of the current transducer 2 comprises an opening or central passage 22 ).
Regarding claim 12, Claeys teaches wherein the housing opening is substantially aligned with the center opening of the magnetic core (Figs. 8a-8b; as shown).
Regarding claim 13, Claeys teaches wherein in an instance in which a conductive wire is passed through the housing opening, the conductive wire simultaneously passes through the center opening of the magnetic core (Fig. 1a-8a).
Regarding claim 14, Claeys teaches wherein in an instance in which a current passes through the conductive wire, a magnetic field is concentrated in the magnetic core (¶[0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Claeys teaches wherein the sensing element converts a characteristic of the magnetic field concentrated within the magnetic core into a voltage (¶[0045]; hall effect sensor converts mag field to voltage).
Regarding claim 16, Claeys teaches wherein the sensing element is one of a hall effect sensor, an anisotropic magneto-resistive (AMR) sensor, a tunneling magneto-resistive (TMR) sensor, and a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor (¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Claeys teaches further comprising: a circuit board attached to the second housing, wherein the voltage is transmitted to the circuit board (Fig. 1a-8a; board 12).
Claim 3, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claeys, US 20160154027 in view of Simonin, US 20170003325 in view of Teng et al., CN 111579846
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Claeys is silent in wherein an adhesive substance is disposed in the partially enclosed space of the protective case; wherein the adhesive substance comprises a one component epoxy compound heat cure adhesive. Teng teaches wherein an adhesive substance is disposed in the partially enclosed space of the protective case; wherein the adhesive substance comprises a one component epoxy compound heat cure adhesive (Embodiment one; Fig. 2; epoxy resin encapsulated in text box 1 which is considered the protective case). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Teng into Claeys for the benefit of protecting the magnetic sensor unit.
Regarding claim 7, Claeys is silent in wherein the protective case comprises a synthetic polymer. Teng teaches wherein a protective case comprises a synthetic polymer (Embodiment one; Fig. 2; epoxy resin encapsulated in text box 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Teng into Claeys for the benefit of protecting the magnetic sensor unit.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claeys, US 20160154027 in view of Simonin, US 20170003325 in view of Ozaki et al., FR 2869417
Regarding claim 6, Claeys is silent in wherein in an instance in which the first housing and the second housing are separated, the protective case remains attached to the second housing. Ozaki teaches wherein in an instance in which a first housing and a second housing are separated, the protective case remains attached to the second housing (Fig. 25; element 102 rises on underside 19a of the circuit storing portion 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Ozaki into Claeys for the benefit of providing a secure attachment to the housing member.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claeys, US 20160154027 in view of Simonin, US 20170003325 in view of Becker et al., US 20180306841
Regarding claim 17, Claeys is silent in wherein the characteristic of the magnetic field is at least one of a magnitude of the magnetic field and an angle of the magnetic field. Becker teaches a characteristic of the magnetic field is at least one of a magnitude of the magnetic field and an angle of the magnetic field (¶[0003]-[0004]; strength of magnetic field based on magnitude of current). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Becker into Claeys for the benefit of accurately determining a current in a current carrying conductive element.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin, US 20170003325 in view of Teng et al., CN 111579846
Regarding claim 20, Simonin is silent in wherein disposing the sensing element in the protective case comprises injecting an adhesive substance inside the protective case such that the adhesive substance is configured to couple the sensing element and the protective case. Teng teaches wherein attaching the first housing to the second housing comprises injecting an adhesive substance inside the protective case such that the adhesive substance is configured to couple the sensing element and the protective case (Embodiment one section; Fig. 2; sensor 102 installed in box 1 encapsulated by epoxy resin). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Teng into Simonin for the benefit of protecting the magnetic sensor unit.
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 FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights