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 4/13/2026.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that all claim amendments must clearly be indicated, such as by way of strike-through or underline as required in the MPEP. Claim 5, for example, now has the phrase “wherein the first magnetic permeability material film and the first permalloy material layer combined to provide” on lines 1-2, but where such a phrase was not previously claimed, and this phrase was not indicated as being added by way of underline. A similar issue also exists in Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on page 7 directed towards the previous 112 rejections,
These rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments, except for the rejections of Claim 17, 18, and 19. Previously, the Examiner raised the issue where applicant was referring to a permalloy layer from Claim 16, by reciting “the at least one permalloy layer” in Claims 17 and 18. However, no such layer is recited in Claim 16, which instead recites a magnetic concentrator. As such, this issue is repeated in the rejections below, because it is unclear what permalloy material layer is being referenced, and the relationship between this permalloy layer and the claimed magnetic concentrator of Claim 16 is unclear. As best understood, applicant is reciting the same layer using different terminology in Claims 16, 17, and 18, which is indefinite.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-55 directed towards the prior art rejections,
These arguments are largely moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Those arguments directed towards Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2022/0018879 A1) in view of Bito et al. (Bito) (US 2021/0025948 A1) are moot for this reason.
That stated, the Examiner notes the following.
As to Claim 2,
The arguments here are moot, but the Examiner notes, for clarity, that the term “opposes” only requires that two layers oppose, and thus face each other. Two layers can reasonably face each other or oppose each other even with an object or layer in between, as the layers are still facing each other even with such an intervening object.
As to Claim 5,
Applicant argues that the previous explanation by the Examiner where the final product is substantially similar to that of applicant is mere supposition not supported by fact, that neither prior art reference expressly discloses the coupling, and that drawings are not to scale.
The Examiner respectfully notes that as explained in MPEP 2112(II), “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” MPEP 2112(IV) “"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art."
Here, it has been explained that because the prior art combination is substantially the same as that disclosed by applicant, it must reasonably have the same or substantially the same characteristics of applicant’s final product. Such a position is reasonable given the similarities.
MPEP 2112(V) then explains “ONCE A REFERENCE TEACHING PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS MADE THE BASIS OF A REJECTION, AND THE EXAMINER PRESENTS EVIDENCE OR REASONING TO SHOW INHERENCY, THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT
"[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
Here, applicant, respectfully, has not presented any evidence to rebut the explanation presented by applicant. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, there is no requirement that the prior art expressly disclose or even recognize any particular feature, including the argued claim feature. What is required is that such a feature would reasonably be present, and the Examiner has made such a showing.
Applicant argues that drawings are not to scale, the but applicant has not explained why such a feature would necessarily prevent the prior art from disclosing the claim feature. Furthermore, whether the drawings are or art not to scale, it has already been held that “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) ... When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification” (MPEP 2125(I)) (emphasis added). As such, regardless of the actual dimensions, what is shown, in the combination, as disclosed, would reasonably disclose the claim feature.
As to any remaining arguments, these arguments are either moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, or addressed by the above explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-19 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 17 and 18,
These claims have been amended to refer to “the first permalloy material layer,” such as on lines 1-2 of Claim 17 and line 3 of Claim 18. However, no first permalloy material layer was previously recited. Claim 16 now recites a first magnetic concentrator, but this concentrator is not recited to be formed from permalloy. As such, it is unclear if applicant intends to refer to this concentrator or to some other first permalloy material layer.
As to Claim 19,
This claim stands rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter as Claim 18, and therefore stands 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, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2022/0018879 A1) in view of Zhong et al. (Zhong) (CN 106158235 A)
Note the cited paragraphs from Zhong come from the provided English machine translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 1 and 6,
Lee discloses An electronic component package and A method of forming the electronic component package, comprising: attaching an integrated circuit (IC) die (306) attached to 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 a first magnetic permeability material film (308) 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), forming a second magnetic permeability film (310) on the surface of 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 a first permalloy material layer directly on the first magnetic permeability material film, forming a second permalloy material layer direction on the second magnetic permeability material.
Zhong discloses that it is known to form a permalloy material layer (B) directly on a magnetic permeability material film (A) and to form one magnetic concentrator out of plural permalloy/magnetic permeability layers (Paragraphs [0028],[0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include using plural directly stacked permalloy magnetic layers as the magnetic concentrator for each of the magnetic concentrators to therefore include forming a first permalloy material layer directly on the first magnetic permeability material film, forming a second permalloy material layer direction on the second magnetic permeability material given the above disclosure and teaching of Zhong in order to advantageously utilize a magnetic concentrator configuration that will not include an out-of-plane distribution of the magnetic moment, i.e., no out-of-plane anisotropy will occur, giving the film excellent magnetic flux-gathering performance (Paragraph [0026]).
As to Claims 3 and 8,
Lee does not disclose wherein the first magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the first 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]), thus demonstrating that the various dimensions of the components of the current sensor are result effective variables.
Zhong further discloses that different thicknesses can be used for the magnetic films (Paragraph [0029]), thus reasonably demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
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 Zhong include optimizing the dimensions of the first magnetic permeability material film and the first 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 Zhong 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, and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to Claims 4 and 9,
Lee does not disclose wherein the first 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]), thus demonstrating that the dimensions of the films are result effective variables.
Zhong further discloses that different thicknesses can be used for the magnetic films (Paragraph [0029]), thus reasonably demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
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 Zhong include optimizing the dimensions of the first magnetic permeability material film to therefore include the first magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm and a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Zhong 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, and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to Claims 5 and 10,
Lee in view of Zhong discloses wherein the first magnetic permeability material film and the first permalloy material layer combined to provide a 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 1 of Zhong / 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) attached to 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); a first magnetic permeability material film (308) formed on a surface of the IC die to provide concentration of the magnetic field (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0020] / note elements 308,310 are magnetic concentrators formed by wafer processing and thus are reasonably films), a second magnetic permeability material film (310) formed on the surface of the IC die to provide concentration of the magnetic field (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 a first permalloy material layer directly on the first magnetic permeability material film, the first magnetic permeability material film and the first permalloy material layer combining to provide a first magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field, forming a second permalloy material layer directly on the second magnetic permeability material film, the second magnetic permeability material film and the second permalloy material layer combining to provide a second magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field.
Zhong discloses that it is known to form a permalloy material layer (B) directly on a magnetic permeability material film (A) and to form one magnetic concentrator out of plural permalloy/magnetic permeability layers (Paragraphs [0028],[0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include using plural directly stacked permalloy magnetic layers as the magnetic concentrator for each of the magnetic concentrators to therefore include a first permalloy material layer directly on the first magnetic permeability material film, the first magnetic permeability material film and the first permalloy material layer combining to provide a first magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field, forming a second permalloy material layer directly on the second magnetic permeability material film, the second magnetic permeability material film and the second permalloy material layer combining to provide a second magnetic concentrator providing concentration of the magnetic field given the above disclosure and teaching of Zhong in order to advantageously utilize a magnetic concentrator configuration that will not include an out-of-plane distribution of the magnetic moment, i.e., no out-of-plane anisotropy will occur, giving the film excellent magnetic flux-gathering performance (Paragraph [0026]).
As to Claim 13,
Lee does not disclose wherein the first magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the first 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]), thus demonstrating that the various dimensions of the components of the current sensor are result effective variables.
Zhong further discloses that different thicknesses can be used for the magnetic films (Paragraph [0029]), thus reasonably demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
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 Zhong include optimizing the dimensions of the first magnetic permeability material film and the first 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 Zhong 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, and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to Claim 14,
Lee does not disclose wherein the first 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]), thus demonstrating that the dimensions of the films are result effective variables.
Zhong further discloses that different thicknesses can be used for the magnetic films (Paragraph [0029]), thus reasonably demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
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 Zhong include optimizing the dimensions of the first magnetic permeability material film to therefore include the first magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm and a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Zhong 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, and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to Claim 15,
Lee in view of Zhong discloses wherein the first magnetic permeability material film and the first permalloy material layer combined to provide a 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 1 of Zhong / 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:
attaching an integrated circuit (IC) die (306) to a lead frame (302) configured to conduct a current (Figures 3,4) (Paragraph [0018]), forming a first magnetic permeability material film (308) on a surface of the IC die (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0020] / note elements 308,310 are magnetic concentrators formed by wafer processing and thus are reasonably films), forming a second magnetic permeability material film (310) on the surface of 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, the first magnetic permeability material film, and the second magnetic permeability 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), (Figure 3 / note the Hall sensing elements (312-318) and IC die (306) are formed on lead frame (302)).
Lee does not disclose forming a first magnetic concentrator directly on the first magnetic permeability material film, forming a second magnetic concentrator material layer directly on the second magnetic permeability material film, wherein the IC die, the first magnetic permeability material film, the first magnetic concentrator, the second magnetic permeability material film and the second magnetic concentrator combined to form a Hall sensor.
Zhong discloses that it is known to form a magnetic concentrator material layer (B) directly on a magnetic permeability material film (A) and to form one magnetic concentrator out of plural permalloy/magnetic permeability layers (Paragraphs [0028],[0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include using plural directly stacked permalloy magnetic layers as the magnetic concentrator for each of the magnetic concentrators to therefore include forming a first magnetic concentrator directly on the first magnetic permeability material film, forming a second magnetic concentrator material layer directly on the second magnetic permeability material film, wherein the IC die, the first magnetic permeability material film, the first magnetic concentrator, the second magnetic permeability material film and the second magnetic concentrator combined to form a Hall sensor given the above disclosure and teaching of Zhong in order to advantageously utilize a magnetic concentrator configuration that will not include an out-of-plane distribution of the magnetic moment, i.e., no out-of-plane anisotropy will occur, giving the film excellent magnetic flux-gathering performance (Paragraph [0026]).
As to Claim 18,
Lee does not disclose wherein the first magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 20-25 µm and a diameter of between approximately 900-1000 µm, wherein the first 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]), thus demonstrating that the various dimensions of the components of the current sensor are result effective variables.
Zhong further discloses that different thicknesses can be used for the magnetic films (Paragraph [0029]), thus reasonably demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
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 Zhong include optimizing the dimensions of the first magnetic permeability material film and the first 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 Zhong 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, and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to Claim 19,
Lee does not disclose wherein the first 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]), thus demonstrating that the dimensions of the films are result effective variables.
Zhong further discloses that different thicknesses can be used for the magnetic films (Paragraph [0029]), thus reasonably demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
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 Zhong include optimizing the dimensions of the first magnetic permeability material film to therefore include the first magnetic permeability material film has a thickness of between approximately 30-38 µm and a diameter of between approximately 800-900 µm given the above disclosure and teaching of Lee and Zhong 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, and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to Claim 20,
Lee in view of Zhong discloses wherein the first magnetic permeability material film and the first permalloy material layer combined to provide a 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 1 of Zhong / 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).
Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2022/0018879 A1) in view of Zhong et al. (Zhong) (CN 106158235 A) as applied to Claims 1, 6, or 11 and in further view of Bito et al. (Bito) (US 2021/0025948 A1).
As to Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17,
Lee in view of Zhong disclose each of the first permalloy material layer has a first surface that opposes a second surface of the first 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 in view of Zhong 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 in view of Zhong 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]).
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
Prosecution Insights