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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kyosaki (US 2024/0345140) in view of Kanehara (JP2007078418A).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
As to Claim 1,
Kyosaki discloses A current measurement module comprising: a conductor which has two main body portions (11,12) and two current paths (13,14) disposed between the two main body portions and extending along a longitudinal direction of the conductor in parallel with a gap (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0048]); two magnetic field sensing elements (22,23) which each have a magnetosensitive surface disposed such that magnetic fields generated by current flowing through the two current paths penetrate the magnetosensitive surface in directions opposite to each other (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0054]); and a substrate (20) which supports the two magnetic field sensing elements and is coupled with the conductor (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0052]), the two main body portions each have a slit (16,17) which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap (Figure 1), the substrate is inserted perpendicularly into the gap (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0056]), and the two current paths are entirely coplanar (Figure 1), a width L1 of each of the two current paths in a top view of the conductor (Figures 1,4B), a length L2 of the gap between the two current paths in the top view of the conductor taken in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction in which the two current paths extend (Figures 1,4B), a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1 (Figures 1,4B), and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationships of L2 > 1.5 x L1 Figures 1,4B).
Kyosaki does not disclose a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4.
Kanehara discloses a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4 (see above figure), (Figures 5a,10), (Paragraphs [0021],[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kyosaki to include a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4 as taught by Kanehara in order to advantageously position the magnetic field in a desired manner relative to each respective magnetic field sensor that does not negatively influence the other sensor and allows for proper magnetic field detection while still generating a magnetic field strong enough for detection.
As to Claim 2,
Kyosaki discloses a fixing portion (24,25) which couples the substrate to the two main body portions (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0056])
As to Claim 3,
Kyosaki discloses each of the two current paths is located inward of both outer edges of each of the two main body portions in a direction in which the two current paths are arranged (Figure 1).
As to Claim 5,
Kyosaki discloses wherein a relationship of L2 ≤ 4 × L1 is satisfied (Figure 4B).
As to Claim 6,
Kyosaki discloses wherein the two main body portions include extension portions extending in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which current flows through the two current paths, respectively, and the extension portions of the two main body portions extend in directions opposite to each other (Figure 1 / note that a “portion” of each main body can be selected that extends in the claim direction).
As to Claim 7,
Kyosaki discloses A current measurement device comprising the current measurement module according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0005]),(see above rejection).
As to Claim 8,
Kyosaki discloses A current measurement conductor comprising: two main body portions (11,12), (Figure 1); and two current paths (13,14) disposed between the two main body portions and extending along a longitudinal direction of the conductor in parallel with a gap (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0048]), wherein the two main body portions each have a slit (16,17) which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0056]), and the two current paths are entirely coplanar (Figure 1), a width L1 of each of the two current paths in a top view of the conductor, a length L2 of the gap between the two current paths in the top view of the conductor taken in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction in which the two current paths extend (this direction is into the page in the thickness direction of the current paths), a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationships of L2 > 1.5 x L1 (see above figures).
Kyosaki does not disclose a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4.
Kanehara discloses a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4 (see above figure), (Figures 5a,10), (Paragraphs [0021],[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kyosaki to include a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4 as taught by Kanehara in order to advantageously position the magnetic field in a desired manner relative to each respective magnetic field sensor that does not negatively influence the other sensor and allows for proper magnetic field detection while still generating a magnetic field strong enough for detection.
As to Claim 9,
Kyosaki discloses wherein the two main body portions include extension portions extending in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which current flows through the two current paths, respectively, and the extension portions of the two main body portions extend in directions opposite to each other (Figure 1/ note the main body portions are or can be said to include extension portions, and being they extend in three dimensions, they or their extending portions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the current flow direction).
As to Claim 10,
Kyosaki discloses A current measurement conductor comprising: two main body portions (11,12), (Figure 1); and two current paths (13,14) disposed between the two main body portions and extending along a longitudinal direction of the conductor in parallel with a gap (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0048]), wherein the two main body portions each have a slit (16,17) which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0056]), each of the two main body portions includes an extension portion extending, in a plan view, in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the gap extends (Figure 1 / note the main body portions are or can be said to include extension portions, and being they extend in three dimensions, they or their extending portions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the current flow direction), wherein the extension portion of one of the two main body portions and the extension portion of another one of the two main body portions extend in directions opposite to each other (Figure 1 / note the main body portions are or can be said to include extension portions, and being they extend in three dimensions, they must extend in a direction orthogonal to the current flow direction),and the two current paths are entirely coplanar (Figure 1), a width L1 of each of the two current paths in a top view of the conductor, a length L2 of the gap between the two current paths in the top view of the conductor taken in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction in which the two current paths extend (this direction is into the page in the thickness direction of the current paths), a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationships of L2 > 1.5 x L1 (see above figures).
Kyosaki does not disclose a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4.
Kanehara discloses a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4 (see above figure), (Figures 5a,10), (Paragraphs [0021],[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kyosaki to include a depth L4 orthogonal to the width L1, and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationship and L5> L4 as taught by Kanehara in order to advantageously position the magnetic field in a desired manner relative to each respective magnetic field sensor that does not negatively influence the other sensor and allows for proper magnetic field detection while still generating a magnetic field strong enough for detection.
As to Claim 11,
Kyosaki discloses A current measurement module comprising: the current measurement conductor according to claim 10 (see above rejection), the two magnetic field sensing elements (22,23) which each have a magnetosensitive surface disposed such that magnetic fields generated by current flowing through the two current paths penetrate the magnetosensitive surface in directions opposite to each other (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0054]); and a substrate (20) which supports the two magnetic field sensing elements and is coupled with the conductor (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0052]),
As to Claim 12,
Kyosaki discloses a fixing portion (24,25) which couples the substrate to the two main body portions (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0056])
As to Claim 13,
Kyosaki discloses the two current paths are disposed farther inward than outer edges of the two main body portions in a direction in which the two current paths are arranged (Figure 1).
As to Claim 15,
Kyosaki discloses wherein a relationship of L2 ≤ 4 × L1 is satisfied (Figure 4B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights