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
The amendment filed on 2025-12-26 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-10 remain pending in this application. No Claim(s) have been amended, added or canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-12-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hirano is silent about where and how to mount the alleged current sensor, 6, onto a mounting surface of a circuit board and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not readily understand and appreciate that after a 180 degree rotation that the sensor would be placed on the wiring board of Manabu without referring to the instant specification. Further, applicant argues, that a basis for why one having ordinary skill in the art would rotate the current sensor by 180 degrees was not established by the office.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons,
In response to applicant's argument that Hirano is silent about where/how to mount the circuit board, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The rejection in the prior office action did not rely on the teachings of Hirano to teach the mounting, this was taught by the primary reference Manabu. The rejection only relied on the teaching for an underneath portion. Therefore, no hindsight reasoning is required or relied upon by the examiner. The combined teachings of Manabu in view of Hirano would suggest the incorporation of a portion positioned below the externally connected portions in the first direction as laid out in the previous office action and reiterated below.
In response to applicants arguments that the basis for why one having ordinary skill in the art would rotate the current sensor by 180 degrees was not established by the office. The actual physical rotation of the prior art is not required for the claim to read on the prior art and the examiner never suggested it was. Instead, the examiner stated a rotation of the Figure, as shown in the annotated figure 22A of Hirano, would show the first direction more clearly so as to establish the examiner’s interpretation of the claim language. Since the underneath portion is a relative description based on the first direction, it can be established that a first direction which runs from the negative Z axis to the positive Z axis (i.e. the negative Z axis would be placed at the top of the grid arrangement) in the Figure 22A of Hirano would have an underneath portion positioned below the externally connected portions. This interpretation does not require an explanation/ motivation to combine or modify as no such additional modification is made except for that which was established in the rejection in the previous office action and reiterated below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu et al. (JP-2020106302-A, from applicant IDS, refer to attached machine translation for references cited) in view of Hirano et al. (US-20220244325-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Manabu teaches a current sensor comprising:
a bus bar (Fig 5-6: bus bar, 240) through which a current under measurement flows;
a magnetism detection element (Fig 4a: sensor element, 32); and
a chassis (Fig 5: main body, 230); wherein
the current sensor is mounted on a circuit board (Fig 5: wiring board, 10) in a state in which the chassis is inserted into an opening formed in the circuit board (Para [0038] with reference to Fig 5-6b teaches the main body, 230, inserted into an opening,14 , in the wiring board, 10) with a current path being provided on a mounting surface (Fig 5-6b: mounting surface, 11) and the bus bar is connected to the current path (Para [0036] teaches the bus bar electrically connected to the mounting surface, 11, and the current path, 13),
the bus bar has an incorporation portion placed in an interior of the chassis as well as externally connected portions extending from both ends of the incorporation portion, one from each side, toward an outside of the chassis (Para [0036] with reference to Fig 5-6b teaches the bus bar, 40, penetrating the main body, 230, and extending out from both sides, 230a & 230b. The incorporation portion would therefore be inside the main body, 230), and
when, in a first direction, which is a normal direction of the circuit board, a side on which the mounting surface is positioned is taken as an upper side and a side opposite to the upper side is taken as a lower side with respect to a center of the circuit board in the first direction (Can be seen in Fig 5),
the externally connected portions are positioned above a bottom surface of the chassis in the first direction (Can be seen in Fig 5, the bus bar is connected above the bottom surface of the main body, 231).
Manabu does not teach the incorporation portion has an underneath portion positioned below the externally connected portions in the first direction.
However, Hirano teaches the incorporation portion has an underneath portion positioned below the externally connected portions in the first direction (A 180 deg rotation of Fig 22A shows an underneath portion, 13, positioned below the externally connecting portions 11 and 15, refer to Annotates Fig 22A of Hirano). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bus bar of Manabu to include the incorporation portion of Hirano. A motivation for this modification is a U-shaped section can concentrate magnetic field from the current on either side of the 'U' as which allows detection of relatively weak current flow as taught by Hirano in Para [0105].
Regarding Claim 2, Manabu further teaches wherein the bottom surface of the chassis is positioned below a back surface, which is a lower surface of the circuit board (Para [0029] teaches the bottom surface of the main body below the board bottom surface, 12).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Manabu in view of Hirano, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches linking portions that extend upward from both ends of the bottom portion, one from each side, and each of which is connected to one of the externally connected portions (Refer to Annotated Fig 22A of Hirano). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Manabu in view of Hirano does not explicitly teach wherein the underneath portion has a bottom portion extending along the bottom surface of the chassis. However, it has be held, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), that the rearrangement of parts is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the location of the underneath portion to extend along the bottom surface of the chassis. A motivation for this rearrangement may be due to sizing/spacing constraints of the current sensor.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Manabu in view of Hirano, as presented with respect to claim 4, teaches wherein the magnetism detection element is placed at a position, in the interior of the chassis, at which the magnetism detection element faces the bottom portion in the first direction (Can be seen in Annotated Fig 22A of Hirano). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 10, Manabu further teaches the current sensor according to Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 rejection); and the circuit board with the current path provided on the mounting surface (Para 0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 22A of Hirano
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858