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 2025-09-30 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 8-12 remain pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3, 5-7 have been canceled. Claims 8-12 have been newly added.
The amendment to the drawings is acceptable, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112 rejections made in the prior office action have been withdrawn as the rejection was to claims that have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-09-30, with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection on pages 8-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application by use of particular structure, specifically the holder.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as the structure, as claimed, is comprised of elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional as detailed in the 35 USC 101 rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection on pages 10-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as set forth below (see Figures 1 & 2 for flow chart).
PNG
media_image1.png
944
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
907
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 & 2: From MPEP 2106 section III and 2106.04 section IIA respectively.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 8-12:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The claims are directed to a current specifying device and therefore to a machine.
Prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes; Analyzing …, confirming …, detecting …, specifying …, are abstract ideas within the category of “mental processes” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions.
The claim limitations considered to be abstract ideas are:
“specify a current value of the current flowing in the multicore cable by using the magnetic field strength detected by at least one sensor among the plurality of sensors;”
“calculate a first ratio of a magnetic field strength detected by the first sensor to a magnetic field strength detected by the second sensor at a first timing;”
“calculate a second ratio of a magnetic field strength detected by the first sensor to a magnetic field strength detected by the second sensor at a second timing that is different from the first timing;”
“output information being related to a position of the sensor unit having been displaced with the multicore cable, if a ratio of the first ratio at the first timing to the second ratio at the second timing is not within a predetermined range.” In lines 15-26
These claim limitations are considered mental processes because they correspond to observations, evaluations, and judgements and under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper. Thus, these limitations fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract idea.
Additionally Claim 1 recites, “detect a change in a relative relationship of the magnetic field strengths detected by at least two sensors among the plurality of sensors” in lines 17-18. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because they amount to mere data gathering for the judicial exception above. MPEP 2106.05(g) (3).
Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of
“a sensor unit comprising:
a holder configured to fit onto an outer side of a sheath of a multicore cable: and
a plurality of sensors configured to detect a magnetic field strength of a magnetic field generated by current flowing in the multicore cable; and
a controller having a CPU and a memory,
wherein the holder houses the plurality of sensors so that relative positions of the plurality of sensors do not change,
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a first sensor and a second sensor” In lines 2-12. These limitations fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the additional elements recited are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). As evidenced by Scott et al. (AU-2020226203-A1) in view of Libove et al. (US-5473244-A).
Scott in view of Libove teaches a sensor unit comprising:
a holder (Scott - Fig 6A-6D: housing, 620) configured to fit onto an outer side of a sheath of a multicore cable (Scott - Can be seen in Figure 6C-6D): and
a plurality of sensors (Scott - Fig 6A-6D: sensor, 613) configured to detect a magnetic field strength of a magnetic field generated by current flowing in the multicore cable (Scott - Para [0118] teaches the sensors may be current sensors that detect magnetic fields); and
a controller having a CPU and a memory (Libove - col. 12 lines 47-53 teach that calculations related to voltage/current can be performed with a processor and may be stored in memory),
wherein the holder houses the plurality of sensors so that relative positions of the plurality of sensors do not change (Scott - Can be seen in Fig 6A-6D),
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a first sensor and a second sensor (Scott - Can be seen in Fig 6A-6D).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the additional elements recited above are not sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. They are well understood, routine, conventional as evidenced immediately above.
Regarding claims 4 and 8-12,
Claim 4 recites the additional element of: “wherein the at least two sensors are arranged adjacent to each other about an axis of the multicore cable.: in lines 2-3. The additional elements recited are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Scott further teaches wherein the at least two sensors are arranged adjacent to each other about an axis of the multicore cable (Can be seen in Fig 6D).
Claim 8 recites the additional element of: “wherein the predetermined range is 0.95 to 1.05.” In lines 1-2. This limitation simply further limits the abstract idea and amounts to insignificant post-solution activity because it amounts to mere data gathering and outputting. MPEP 2106.05(g) (3).
Claim 9 recites the additional element of: “output information related to a position of the sensor unit being not displaced with the multicore cable, if the ratio of the first ratio at the first timing to the second ratio at the second timing is within the predetermined range.” In lines 3-5. This limitation amounts to insignificant post-solution activity because it amounts to mere data gathering and outputting. MPEP 2106.05(g) (3).
Claim 10 recites the additional element of: “the holder is configured by assembling two partial holders; and a through hole for placing and holding the multicore cable therein is defined between the two partial holders.” In lines 2-4. The additional elements recited are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Scott further teaches the holder is configured by assembling two partial holders (Fig 6C: first and second housings, 620.1 & 620.2); and a through hole for placing and holding the multicore cable therein is defined between the two partial holders (Fig 6A: opening, 621).
Claim 11 recites the additional element of: “wherein the two partial holders are disposed in contact with each other.” In lines 1-2. The additional elements recited are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). As Scott further teaches wherein the two partial holders are disposed in contact with each other (Can be seen in Figs 6C and 6D).
Claim 12 recites the additional element of: “wherein the two partial holders are disposed not in contact with each other: in lines 1-2. The additional elements recited are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). As Scott in view of Libove in further view of McCammon et al. (US-20160209445-A1) teaches wherein the two partial holders are disposed not in contact with each other (McCammon - Figs 16-17 shows two holders not in contact with each other holding a cable).
Conclusion
It is noted that no prior art rejection is made in this office action. The reason no prior art is applied to claims 1, 4, and 8-12 is as follows:
Regarding Claim 1, the specific reason is the inclusion of the limitations “calculate a first ratio of a magnetic field strength detected by the first sensor to a magnetic field strength detected by the second sensor at a first timing;
calculate a second ratio of a magnetic field strength detected by the first sensor to a magnetic field strength detected by the second sensor at a second timing that is different from the first timing; and
output information being related to a position of the sensor unit having been displaced with the multicore cable, if a ratio of the first ratio at the first timing to the second ratio at the second timing is not within a predetermined range.” In lines 19-26.
The closest prior art is Ogata in view of Libove as described above. While Ogata does teach a way to calculate the current detected in a cable, Ogata does not compare a measurement taken at the first time to one taken at the second time. It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim have no prior art applied in this office action.
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 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