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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 3/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-10 directed towards the prior combination of Kanehara (JP2007078418A) in view of Shimizu et al. (Shimizu) (US 2020/0064417),
Applicant argues that the gap between the current paths is not taken in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the two current paths extend. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At issue here is what the extension direction of the current paths are, and the claims do not provide any limitation of how such a feature must be interpreted. The current paths are physical objects, and all physical objects extend in three dimensions, thereby allowing the gap to be take to be orthogonal an extending direction of the paths into the page (the thickness direction). Such an interpretation is reasonable, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of an extending direction, is a direction in which the paths or an object extends. Without any further limit on this feature, an extension direction can reasonably be any of the three direction that the object (path) extends in.
In short, the same interpretation previously asserted is still available, as the gap can be defined to be perpendicular to one of the three extending directions of the current path, with that extending direction being one that is into the page of Kanehara in the first figure seen below, which is the thickness direction of the current path(s).
Applicant then argues a benefit of the dimensions claimed, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a benefit does not overcome the prima facie obviousness rejection asserted below, as the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature.
The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara (JP2007078418A) in view of Shimizu et al. (Shimizu) (US 2020/0064417).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
406
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
460
791
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
392
538
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
374
570
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Kanehara discloses A current measurement module comprising: a conductor which has two main body portions and two current paths disposed between the two main body portions and extending in parallel with a gap (see above figures); two magnetic field sensing elements 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 (see above figures / note that this is a property of the system because the sensing elements YH1 and YH2 are located on opposite sides of the gap),(Paragraph [0011]); and a substrate (the chip substrate) which supports the two magnetic field sensing elements (Paragraph [0009]), the substrate is inserted perpendicularly into the gap (Figure 10), and the two current paths are entirely coplanar (Figures 5a,10), (Paragraphs [0021],[0041]), 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 a 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 and L5> L4 (see above figures).
Kanehara does not disclose a substrate is coupled with the conductor, wherein the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap, the substrate is inserted perpendicularly into the slit and the gap.
Shimizu a substrate (30) which supports the two magnetic field sensing elements and is couple with the conductor (Figures 1,4), (Paragraphs [0034],[0037]), wherein the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap (Figure 13), (see above figure), the substrate is inserted into the slit and the gap (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include a substrate is coupled with the conductor, wherein the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap, the substrate is inserted perpendicularly into the slit and the gap given the above disclosure and teaching of Shimizu in order to advantageously be able to securely attach the sensing elements to the bus bar in a manner that reduces or prevents angular misalignment or rotational misalignment in the sensor with respect to the bus bar (Paragraph [0035]), and in order to advantageously further reduce any angular misalignment by providing a positioning slit as a reference device usable when positioning the sensor (Paragraph [0108]).
Kanehara is stated to disclose L2 > 1.5 x L1 because as best understood, this feature is disclosed in the above figure. That stated, Kanehara does not explicitly disclose L2 > 1.5 x L1.
Shimizu discloses a width L1 of each of the two current paths in a top view of the conductor (see above figures), a length L2 of the gap between the two current paths in the top view of the conductor (see above figures / note that from the top view, the portion of the gap over element (22) will be viewable, and thus the gap from a top view will extend from the left side of 22 to the left side of 21), a depth width L4 orthogonal to the width L1 (see above figures), and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationships of L2 > 1.5 × L1 and L5 > L4 (see above figures), (Figure 8 / note the distance (L5) between elements 3a and 3b is reasonably larger than L4, and L2 is reasonably at least 1.5 times L1, because it is essentially L1 plus the entirety of the space between 21 and 22, which is approximately the same as L1, thus making L2 approximately 2XL1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include L2 > 1.5 x L1 as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously ensure that the sensor chip has enough space to fit within the gap and to simultaneously reduce the width of the current paths to allow the device to fit in smaller spaces, and reduce cost by reducing the amount of material needed.
As to Claim 2,
Kanehara does not disclose a fixing portion which couples the substrate to the two main body portions.
Shimizu discloses a fixing portion (10c) which couples the substrate to the two main body portions (Figure 1),(Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include a fixing portion which couples the substrate to the two main body portions as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously securely attach the sensing elements to the bus bar in a manner that reduces or prevents angular misalignment or rotational misalignment in the sensor with respect to the bus bar (Paragraph [0035]).
As to Claim 3,
Kanehara 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 5a / note the outer edges are the top and bottom edges of the main body portions, and the current paths are arranged in between the main body portions).
As to Claim 5,
Kanehara discloses wherein a relationship of L2 ≤ 4 × L1 is satisfied (see above figures), (Figures 5a,10).
As to Claim 6,
Kanehara 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 (Figures 5a,10 / note the main body portions are extension portions, and being they extend in three dimensions, they must extend in a direction orthogonal to the current flow direction).
As to Claim 7,
Kanehara in view of Shimizu discloses A current measurement device comprising the current measurement module according to claim 1 (Figures 5a,10), (Paragraphs [0021],[0041]), (see above rejection of Claim 1).
As to Claim 8,
Kanehara discloses A current measurement conductor comprising: two main body portions (see above figures), (Figures 5a,10); and two current paths disposed between the two main body portions and extending in parallel with a gap (see above figures), (Figures 5a,10), and the two current paths are entirely coplanar (see above figures), (Figures 5a,10), (Paragraphs [0021],[0041]), 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 a 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 and L5> L4 (see above figures).
Kanehara does not disclose wherein the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap,
Shimizu the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap, (Figure 13), (see above figures).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously be able to securely attach the sensing elements to the bus bar in a manner that reduces or prevents angular misalignment or rotational misalignment in the sensor with respect to the bus bar (Paragraph [0035]), and in order to advantageously further reduce any angular misalignment by providing a positioning slit as a reference device usable when positioning the sensor (Paragraph [0108]).
Kanehara is stated to disclose L2 > 1.5 x L1 because as best understood, this feature is disclosed in the above figure. That stated, Kanehara does not explicitly disclose L2 > 1.5 x L1.
Shimizu discloses a width L1 of each of the two current paths in a top view of the conductor (see above figures), a length L2 of the gap between the two current paths in the top view of the conductor (see above figures / note that from the top view, the portion of the gap over element (22) will be viewable, and thus the gap from a top view will extend from the left side of 22 to the left side of 21), a depth width L4 orthogonal to the width L1 (see above figures), and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationships of L2 > 1.5 × L1 and L5 > L4 (see above figures), (Figure 8 / note the distance (L5) between elements 3a and 3b is reasonably larger than L4, and L2 is reasonably at least 1.5 times L1, because it is essentially L1 plus the entirety of the space between 21 and 22, which is approximately the same as L1, thus making L2 approximately 2XL1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include L2 > 1.5 x L1 as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously ensure that the sensor chip has enough space to fit within the gap and to simultaneously reduce the width of the current paths to allow the device to fit in smaller spaces, and reduce cost by reducing the amount of material needed.
As to Claim 9,
Kanehara 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 (Figures 5a,10 / note the main body portions are extension portions, and being they extend in three dimensions, they must extend in a direction orthogonal to the current flow direction).
As to Claim 10,
Kanehara discloses A current measurement conductor comprising: two main body portions; and two current paths disposed between the two main body portions and extending in parallel with a gap (Figures 5a,10), (see above figures), 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 (Figures 5a,10), (see above figures), 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 (Figures 5a,10 / note the main body portions are extension portions, and being they extend in three dimensions, they must extend in a direction orthogonal to the current flow direction).; wherein the two current paths are entirely coplanar (Figures 5a,10), (Paragraphs [0021],[0041]), 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 a 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 and L5> L4 (see above figures).
Kanehara does not disclose wherein the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap, 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 slit extends.
Shimizu discloses the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap (see above figures), 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 slit extends (see above figures), (Figure 13 / note the main body portions are extension portions, and thus include extension portions that extend in the above claim direction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include wherein the two main body portions each have a slit which extends from the gap and is narrower than the gap, 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 slit extends as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously be able to securely attach the sensing elements to the bus bar in a manner that reduces or prevents angular misalignment or rotational misalignment in the sensor with respect to the bus bar (Paragraph [0035]), and in order to advantageously further reduce any angular misalignment by providing a positioning slit as a reference device usable when positioning the sensor (Paragraph [0108]).
Kanehara is stated to disclose L2 > 1.5 x L1 because as best understood, this feature is disclosed in the above figure. That stated, Kanehara does not explicitly disclose L2 > 1.5 x L1.
Shimizu discloses a width L1 of each of the two current paths in a top view of the conductor (see above figures), a length L2 of the gap between the two current paths in the top view of the conductor (see above figures / note that from the top view, the portion of the gap over element (22) will be viewable, and thus the gap from a top view will extend from the left side of 22 to the left side of 21), a depth width L4 orthogonal to the width L1 (see above figures), and a distance L5 between the two magnetic field sensing elements satisfy relationships of L2 > 1.5 × L1 and L5 > L4 (see above figures), (Figure 8 / note the distance (L5) between elements 3a and 3b is reasonably larger than L4, and L2 is reasonably at least 1.5 times L1, because it is essentially L1 plus the entirety of the space between 21 and 22, which is approximately the same as L1, thus making L2 approximately 2XL1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include L2 > 1.5 x L1 as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously ensure that the sensor chip has enough space to fit within the gap and to simultaneously reduce the width of the current paths to allow the device to fit in smaller spaces, and reduce cost by reducing the amount of material needed.
As to Claim 11,
Kanehara discloses A current measurement module comprising: the current measurement conductor according to claim 10; the two magnetic field sensing elements 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 (see above figures / note that this is a property of the system because the sensing elements YH1 and YH2 are located on opposite sides of the gap),(Paragraph [0011]); and a substrate (chip substrate) which supports the two magnetic field sensing elements (Paragraph [0009]).
Kanehara does not disclose a substrate which is coupled with the current measurement conductor.
Shimizu a substrate (30) which supports the two magnetic field sensing elements and is couple with the conductor (Figures 1,4), (Paragraphs [0034],[0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include a substrate which is coupled with the current measurement conductor as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously be able to securely attach the sensing elements to the bus bar in a manner that reduces or prevents angular misalignment or rotational misalignment in the sensor with respect to the bus bar (Paragraph [0035]).
As to Claim 12,
Kanehara does not disclose a fixing portion which couples the substrate to the two main body portions.
Shimizu discloses a fixing portion (10c) which couples the substrate to the two main body portions (Figure 1),(Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanehara to include a fixing portion which couples the substrate to the two main body portions as taught by Shimizu in order to advantageously securely attach the sensing elements to the bus bar in a manner that reduces or prevents angular misalignment or rotational misalignment in the sensor with respect to the bus bar (Paragraph [0035]).
As to Claim 13,
Kanehara 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 5a / note the outer edges are the top and bottom edges of the main body portions, and the current paths are arranged in between the main body portions).
As to Claim 15,
Kanehara discloses wherein a relationship of L2 ≤ 4 × L1 is satisfied (see above figures), (Figures 5a,10).
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 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