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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 1, 6 and 11,
The phrase “at least one permalloy material layer formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film, the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field” on lines 5-8 of Claims 1 and 6 and lines 7-10 of Claim 11 lacks proper written description.
As seen above and disclosed in the specification, applicant discloses that each magnetic permeability material film has a respective permalloy material layer formed on the magnetic permeability material film such that the two films combine to form a magnetic concentrator. However, due to the use of the phrase “at least one” used twice in the above claim phrase, the full claim scope reasonably includes other claim interpretations. As currently claimed, the above phrase can reasonably be interpreted to mean that, as disclosed, each magnetic permeability material film has a respective permalloy layer formed on the magnetic permeability material film. However, due to the use of the phrase “at least,” the above phrase can also reasonably mean that plural permalloy layers are formed on one magnetic permeability material film. While the interpretation that one permalloy film is formed on one magnetic permeability material film is supported and reasonably disclosed, the other reasonable interpretation is not reasonably disclosed. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which more than one permalloy film would be formed on the magnetic permeability material film to form a magnetic concentrator, such as whether it would result in two stacked permalloy films or two side by side permalloy films that collectively form one layer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements both interpretations, and would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of both claim interpretations. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “forming at least one magnetic concentrator on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film” on lines 5-6 lacks proper written description.
As seen above and disclosed in the specification, applicant discloses that each magnetic permeability material film has a respective magnetic concentrator formed on the magnetic permeability material film. However, due to the use of the phrase “at least one” used twice in the above claim phrase, the full claim scope reasonably includes other claim interpretations. As currently claimed, the above phrase can reasonably be interpreted to mean that, as disclosed, each magnetic permeability material film has a respective magnetic concentrator formed on the magnetic permeability material film. However, due to the use of the phrase “at least,” the above phrase can also reasonably mean that plural magnetic concentrators are formed on one magnetic permeability material film. While the interpretation that one magnetic concentrator is formed on one magnetic permeability material film is supported and reasonably disclose, the other reasonable interpretation is not reasonably disclosed. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which more than one magnetic concentrator would be formed on the magnetic permeability material film, such as whether it would result in two stacked magnetic concentrators or two side by side magnetic concentrators that collectively form one layer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements both interpretations, and would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of both claim interpretations. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
As to Claims 1, 6, and 11,
PNG
media_image2.png
456
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The phrase “at least one permalloy material layer formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film” on lines 5-6 is indefinite.
1) The first issue is that it is unclear what the relationship is between each permalloy material layer and each magnetic permeability material film. As currently claimed, the above phrase can reasonably be interpreted to mean that, as disclosed, each magnetic permeability material film has a permalloy layer formed on the magnetic permeability material film. However, due to the use of the phrase “at least,” the above phrase can also reasonably mean that plural permalloy layers are formed on one magnetic permeability material film. As explained in MPEP 2173.02(I), “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” As such, because this claim phrase includes more than one reasonable interpretation, the phrase is indefinite because it is unclear which interpretation the claim should be given. For the purpose of compact prosecution and in light of the disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that each magnetic permeability material film has one corresponding permalloy layer formed on the magnetic permeability material film.
2) The above phrase is indefinite because the claim as written requires a respective magnetic permeability material film to have already been recited, but where none have been previously recited. As such, it is unclear what respective magnetic permeability material film this phrase is referencing. This is especially at issue because the phrase “at least one” reasonably includes more than one, and thus the full claim scope of the phrase “at least one magnetic permeability material film” reasonably includes more than one such film, in light of the disclosure.
As to Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17,
The phrase “each of the at least one permalloy layer has a first surface that opposes a second surface of each respective one of the at least one magnetic permeability material film” on lines 1-3 is indefinite. At issue here is that applicant is claiming “respective” magnetic permeability material films, but where applicant has already recited a respective one magnetic permeability material film in Claims 1, 6, 11, or 16. These phrase, however, are distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between the “each respective one of the at least one magnetic permeability material film” recitation of Claims 2, 7, 12, or 17 and the “respective at least one magnetic permeability material film” of Claims 1, 6, 11, or 16is unclear. As best understood, the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film of Claims 1, 6, 11, or 16would be one of the respective films of Claims 2, 7, 12, or 17, but where these phrase are being distinctly recited.
As to Claim 11,
The phrases “at least one magnetic permeability material film on the IC die to provide concentration of the magnetic field” on lines 5-6 and “the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field” on lines 8-10 are indefinite.
Applicant initially claims that the intended use of the at least one magnetic permeability material field is to provide concentration of the magnetic field. However, applicant then claims that it is the combination of the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field. As such, it is unclear, in light of the disclosure, whether it is the magnetic permeability material film that provides the concentration, or if it is the combination of the magnetic permeability material film and the permalloy material layer that provides the concentration. While either or both layers, being magnetic, may be able to provide the claimed concentration of the magnetic field, applicant is distinctly reciting two concentrations of the magnetic field but where, as best understood, both refer to the same concentration of the magnetic field in light of the disclosure. Applicant does not reasonably provide more than one concentration per combination of the permalloy and magnetic permeability material film. As such, the difference and relationship between the two distinct concentrations of the magnetic field are unclear, and therefore indefinite.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “forming at least one magnetic concentrator on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film” on lines 5-6 lacks proper written description.
As seen above and disclosed in the specification, applicant discloses that each magnetic permeability material film has a respective magnetic concentrator formed on the magnetic permeability material film. However, due to the use of the phrase “at least one” used twice in the above claim phrase, the full claim scope reasonably includes other claim interpretations. As currently claimed, the above phrase can reasonably be interpreted to mean that, as disclosed, each magnetic permeability material film has a respective magnetic concentrator formed on the magnetic permeability material film. However, due to the use of the phrase “at least,” the above phrase can also reasonably mean that plural magnetic concentrators are formed on one magnetic permeability material film. As explained in MPEP 2173.02(I), “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” As such, because this claim phrase includes more than one reasonable interpretation, the phrase is indefinite because it is unclear which interpretation the claim should be given. For the purpose of compact prosecution and in light of the disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that each magnetic permeability material film has one corresponding magnetic concentrator formed on the magnetic permeability material film.
2) The above phrase is indefinite because the claim as written requires a respective magnetic permeability material film to have already been recited, but where none have been previously recited. As such, it is unclear what respective magnetic permeability material film this phrase is referencing. This is especially at issue because the phrase “at least one” reasonably includes more than one, and thus the full claim scope of the phrase “at least one magnetic permeability material film” reasonably includes more than one such film, in light of the disclosure.
As to Claims 17 and 18,
The phrase “the at least one permalloy layer” on line 1 of Claim 17 and line 3 of Claim 18 is indefinite. No permalloy layer was previously recited. Claim 16, unlike the other independent claims, recites a magnetic concentrator instead of a permalloy layer. As such, it is unclear what permalloy layer this phrase is referencing. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above permalloy layer to be the magnetic concentrator of Claim 16.
As to Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2022/0018879 A1) in view of Bito et al. (Bito) (US 2021/0025948 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
497
772
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 1 and 6,
Lee discloses An electronic component package and A method of forming the electronic component package, comprising: forming an integrated circuit (IC) die (306) formed on a lead frame (302) that is configured to conduct a current (Figures 3,4) (Paragraph [0018]), the IC die being configured to sense a magnetic field resulting from the current (Paragraph [0019],[0021],[0022] / note the IC includes Hall sensors 312-318 the sense current flowing in legs 303a,b); forming at least one magnetic permeability material film (308,310) formed on the IC die (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0020] / note elements 308,310 are magnetic concentrators formed by wafer processing and thus are reasonably films).
Lee does not disclose forming at least one permalloy material layer formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film, the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field.
Bito discloses forming at least one permalloy material layer (second to bottom layer 236) formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film (bottom layer 236) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0022]), the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field (Paragraph [0022] / note all magnetic layers collectively are disclosed to form magnetic concentrator (230)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include forming at least one permalloy material layer formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film, the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field as taught by Bito in order to advantageously provide a strong concentrator with a higher saturation threshold and thus advantageously provide a concentrator that prevent saturations of the magnetic field within the concentrator which in turn enables the magnetic concentrator to withstand a measurably higher magnetic field input (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claims 2 and 7,
Lee in view of Bito disclose each of the at least one permalloy layer has a first surface that opposes a second surface of each respective one of the at least one magnetic permeability material film (Figure 2 of Bito / note that in the combination, the at least one permalloy material layer is stacked on top of the at least one magnetic permeability material film, and thus the prior art combination must disclose this feature).
Lee does not disclose wherein the first and second surfaces have different surface areas.
Bito discloses the first and second surfaces have different surface areas (Figure 2 / note the bottom layer 236 is wider than the second to bottom layer 236 as each layer is smaller than the layer below it).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the first and second surfaces have different surface areas as taught by Bito in order to advantageously provide a strong concentrator with a higher saturation threshold and thus advantageously provide a concentrator that prevent saturations of the magnetic field within the concentrator which in turn enables the magnetic concentrator to withstand a measurably higher magnetic field input (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claims 3 and 8,
Lee in view of Bito does not disclose wherein the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the at least one permalloy material layer has a thickness of between approximately 95-105 µm and a diameter of between approximately 600-900 µm.
However, Lee discloses that various components of the current sensor may have a range of thicknesses (see for example Paragraphs [0018],[0019]), and that the concentrators may take on many different configurations (Paragraph [0020]).
Bito further discloses that various aspects of the magnetic sensing device, including the magnetic concentrator, may have various dimensions and thicknesses (Paragraphs [0022],[0029]).
In light of the above, the various dimensions claimed are reasonably result effective variables as demonstrated by the above references. Furthermore, no unexpected results have been established by the original disclosure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Bito include optimizing the dimensions of the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer to therefore include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the at least one permalloy material layer has a thickness of between approximately 95-105 µm and a diameter of between approximately 600-900 µm given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
As to Claims 4 and 9,
Lee does not disclose wherein the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm and a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm.
However, Lee discloses that various components of the current sensor may have a range of thicknesses (see for example Paragraphs [0018],[0019]), and that the concentrators may take on many different configurations (Paragraph [0020]).
Bito further discloses the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm (Paragraph [0022] / note 330nm) and that that various aspects of the magnetic sensing device, including the magnetic concentrator, may have various dimensions and thicknesses (Paragraphs [0022],[0029]).
In light of the above, the various dimensions claimed are reasonably result effective variables as demonstrated by the above references. Furthermore, no unexpected results have been established by the original disclosure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm as taught by Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Bito include optimizing the dimensions of the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer to therefore include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm. given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
As to Claims 5 and 10,
Lee in view of Bito discloses the magnetic concentrator provides a magnetic coupling of greater than 0.41 mT/A in current operation greater than 200A (Figure 1 of Lee and Figure 2 of Bito / note that in the combination, the prior art discloses a substantially similar magnetic concentrator as applicant, including the same shape and of similar dimension, and the prior art therefore reasonably discloses this feature as a property of the system given the similarity between the combined magnetic concentrator of the prior art and the concentrator disclosed by applicant).
As to Claim 11,
Lee discloses A Hall sensor system comprising: a lead frame (302) configured to conduct a current (Figures 3,4) (Paragraph [0018]); an integrated circuit (IC) die (306) formed on the lead frame (Figures 3,4) (Paragraph [0018]), the IC die being configured to sense a magnetic field resulting from the current (Paragraph [0019],[0021],[0022] / note the IC includes Hall sensors 312-318 the sense current flowing in legs 303a,b); at least one magnetic permeability material film (308,310) formed on the IC die (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0020] / note elements 308,310 are magnetic concentrators formed by wafer processing and thus are reasonably films).
Lee does not disclose forming at least one permalloy material layer formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film, the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field.
Bito discloses forming at least one permalloy material layer (second to bottom layer 236) formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film (bottom layer 236) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0022]), the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field (Paragraph [0022] / note all magnetic layers collectively are disclosed to form magnetic concentrator (230)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include forming at least one permalloy material layer formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film, the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer combining to provide a magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field as taught by Bito in order to advantageously provide a strong concentrator with a higher saturation threshold and thus advantageously provide a concentrator that prevent saturations of the magnetic field within the concentrator which in turn enables the magnetic concentrator to withstand a measurably higher magnetic field input (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claim 12,
Lee in view of Bito disclose each of the at least one permalloy layer has a first surface that opposes a second surface of each respective one of the at least one magnetic permeability material film (Figure 2 of Bito / note that in the combination, the at least one permalloy material layer is stacked on top of the at least one magnetic permeability material film, and thus the prior art combination must disclose this feature).
Lee does not disclose wherein the first and second surfaces have different surface areas.
Bito discloses the first and second surfaces have different surface areas (Figure 2 / note the bottom layer 236 is wider than the second to bottom layer 236 as each layer is smaller than the layer below it).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the first and second surfaces have different surface areas as taught by Bito in order to advantageously provide a strong concentrator with a higher saturation threshold and thus advantageously provide a concentrator that prevent saturations of the magnetic field within the concentrator which in turn enables the magnetic concentrator to withstand a measurably higher magnetic field input (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claim 13,
Lee in view of Bito does not disclose wherein the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the at least one permalloy material layer has a thickness of between approximately 95-105 µm and a diameter of between approximately 600-900 µm.
However, Lee discloses that various components of the current sensor may have a range of thicknesses (see for example Paragraphs [0018],[0019]), and that the concentrators may take on many different configurations (Paragraph [0020]).
Bito further discloses that various aspects of the magnetic sensing device, including the magnetic concentrator, may have various dimensions and thicknesses (Paragraphs [0022],[0029]).
In light of the above, the various dimensions claimed are reasonably result effective variables as demonstrated by the above references. Furthermore, no unexpected results have been established by the original disclosure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Bito include optimizing the dimensions of the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer to therefore include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the at least one permalloy material layer has a thickness of between approximately 95-105 µm and a diameter of between approximately 600-900 µm given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
As to Claim 14,
Lee does not disclose wherein the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm and a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm.
However, Lee discloses that various components of the current sensor may have a range of thicknesses (see for example Paragraphs [0018],[0019]), and that the concentrators may take on many different configurations (Paragraph [0020]).
Bito further discloses the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm (Paragraph [0022] / note 330nm) and that that various aspects of the magnetic sensing device, including the magnetic concentrator, may have various dimensions and thicknesses (Paragraphs [0022],[0029]).
In light of the above, the various dimensions claimed are reasonably result effective variables as demonstrated by the above references. Furthermore, no unexpected results have been established by the original disclosure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm as taught by Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Bito include optimizing the dimensions of the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer to therefore include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm. given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
As to Claim 15,
Lee in view of Bito discloses the magnetic concentrator provides a magnetic coupling of greater than 0.41 mT/A in current operation greater than 200A (Figure 1 of Lee and Figure 2 of Bito / note that in the combination, the prior art discloses a substantially similar magnetic concentrator as applicant, including the same shape and of similar dimension, and the prior art therefore reasonably discloses this feature as a property of the system given the similarity between the combined magnetic concentrator of the prior art and the concentrator disclosed by applicant).
As to Claim 16,
Lee discloses A method for manufacturing a Hall sensor system comprising: forming a lead frame (302) configured to conduct a current (Figures 3,4) (Paragraph [0018]); forming an integrated circuit (IC) die (306) formed on the lead frame (Figures 3,4) (Paragraph [0018]), forming at least one magnetic permeability material film (308,310) formed on the IC die (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0020] / note elements 308,310 are magnetic concentrators formed by wafer processing and thus are reasonably films), wherein the IC die and the at least one magnetic permeability material film combine to form a Hall sensor (Paragraphs [0018]-[0022] / note the combination of these elements is reasonably a Hall sensor as the IC die of Lee is formed from Hall sensing elements); and providing the Hall sensor on the lead frame (Figure 3 / note the Hall sensing elements (312-318) and IC die (306) are formed on lead frame (302)).
Lee does not disclose forming at least one magnetic concentrator on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film, wherein the IC die, the at least one magnetic permeability material film, and the at least one magnetic concentrator combine to form a Hall sensor.
Bito discloses forming at least one magnetic concentrator (second to bottom layer 236) formed on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film (bottom layer 236) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0022]), wherein the IC die (210), the at least one magnetic permeability material film, and the at least one magnetic concentrator combine to form a Hall sensor (Paragraphs [0020]-[0021] / note the IC die includes Hall sensing elements (220) and that the device is formed during wafer processing, and therefore substrate (225) is reasonably an IC die).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include forming at least one magnetic concentrator on the respective at least one magnetic permeability material film, wherein the IC die, the at least one magnetic permeability material film, and the at least one magnetic concentrator combine to form a Hall sensor as taught by Bito in order to advantageously provide a strong concentrator with a higher saturation threshold and thus advantageously provide a concentrator that prevent saturations of the magnetic field within the concentrator which in turn enables the magnetic concentrator to withstand a measurably higher magnetic field input (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claim 17,
Lee in view of Bito disclose each of the at least one permalloy layer has a first surface that opposes a second surface of each respective one of the at least one magnetic permeability material film (Figure 2 of Bito / note that in the combination, the at least one permalloy material layer is stacked on top of the at least one magnetic permeability material film, and thus the prior art combination must disclose this feature).
Lee does not disclose wherein the first and second surfaces have different surface areas.
Bito discloses the first and second surfaces have different surface areas (Figure 2 / note the bottom layer 236 is wider than the second to bottom layer 236 as each layer is smaller than the layer below it).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the first and second surfaces have different surface areas as taught by Bito in order to advantageously provide a strong concentrator with a higher saturation threshold and thus advantageously provide a concentrator that prevent saturations of the magnetic field within the concentrator which in turn enables the magnetic concentrator to withstand a measurably higher magnetic field input (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claim 18,
Lee in view of Bito does not disclose wherein the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the at least one permalloy material layer has a thickness of between approximately 95-105 µm and a diameter of between approximately 600-900 µm.
However, Lee discloses that various components of the current sensor may have a range of thicknesses (see for example Paragraphs [0018],[0019]), and that the concentrators may take on many different configurations (Paragraph [0020]).
Bito further discloses that various aspects of the magnetic sensing device, including the magnetic concentrator, may have various dimensions and thicknesses (Paragraphs [0022],[0029]).
In light of the above, the various dimensions claimed are reasonably result effective variables as demonstrated by the above references. Furthermore, no unexpected results have been established by the original disclosure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Bito include optimizing the dimensions of the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer to therefore include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the at least one permalloy material layer has a thickness of between approximately 95-105 µm and a diameter of between approximately 600-900 µm given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
As to Claim 19,
Lee does not disclose wherein the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm and a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm.
However, Lee discloses that various components of the current sensor may have a range of thicknesses (see for example Paragraphs [0018],[0019]), and that the concentrators may take on many different configurations (Paragraph [0020]).
Bito further discloses the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm (Paragraph [0022] / note 330nm) and that that various aspects of the magnetic sensing device, including the magnetic concentrator, may have various dimensions and thicknesses (Paragraphs [0022],[0029]).
In light of the above, the various dimensions claimed are reasonably result effective variables as demonstrated by the above references. Furthermore, no unexpected results have been established by the original disclosure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm as taught by Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Bito include optimizing the dimensions of the at least one magnetic permeability material film and the at least one permalloy material layer to therefore include the at least one magnetic permeability material film has a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm. given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Bito in order to advantageously ensure that the current sensor was of sufficient size and able to concentrate the magnetic field to a sufficient degree, but without using a magnetic concentrator that was larger than necessary, to therefore minimize the cost of the concentrator while also ensuring that the magnetic sensor(s) could sufficiently detect a magnetic field generated by the current in the current conductor.
As to Claim 20,
Lee in view of Bito discloses the magnetic concentrator provides a magnetic coupling of greater than 0.41 mT/A in current operation greater than 200A (Figure 1 of Lee and Figure 2 of Bito / note that in the combination, the prior art discloses a substantially similar magnetic concentrator as applicant, including the same shape and of similar dimension, and the prior art therefore reasonably discloses this feature as a property of the system given the similarity between the combined magnetic concentrator of the prior art and the concentrator disclosed by applicant).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2023/0333147 A1 to Messier et al, 2) US 2023/0057390 A1 to Vig et al., and 3) US 2005/0045359 A1 to Doogue et al. which all disclose current sensors.
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