DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendments
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application 18/685,023 filed on December 23,2025 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Entry of Amendments
Amendments to claims 1 and 13 have been entered.
Rejections under USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant's arguments for independent claims 1 and 13 as “Applicant submits the following remarks in support of the amendments made to independent claims 1 and 13. These amendments clarify a structural feature that is foundational to the invention and expressly supported throughout the application, namely that the magnetic core defines a core gap region comprising a first gap and a second gap along a transverse direction, with the second gap being greater than the first. This architecture is shown and described repeatedly, including in the embodiments of Figures 3A through 3E. The amendments do not introduce new matter but instead reflect, in claim form, the very structural geometry that enables the disclosed hybrid current sensor to achieve enhanced magnetic-field management across low- and high-current sensing regimes.
With this clarification now explicitly included in both independent claims, the §103 rejections applied in the Office Action cannot be maintained. The Examiner's combination for claim 1 relies on Racz supplemented by Strutz, but neither reference discloses or suggests a magnetic core incorporating asymmetric transverse gaps. Racz consistently presents a single, symmetric air gap in a conventional Hall-effect yoke structure, and this architecture appears throughout the figures of the Racz patent. Nothing in Racz provides any indication that the gap is subdivided into two transversely arranged regions of differing widths, nor does any passage of Racz discuss magnetic-field shaping to accommodate distinct chip sensitivities. The architecture now expressly required by amended claim 1 is therefore absent from Racz in both form and function.
Strutz likewise fails to supply the missing structure. As noted previously, Strutz addresses certain sensor-module configurations, but it does not discuss magnetic-core geometry, let alone the dual-gap transverse arrangement now recited. Its teachings relate to chip arrangements and electrical sensing elements, not to the physical reconfiguration of a magnetic core, and certainly not to the creation of a multi-gap architecture serving the flux-management goals described in Applicant's specification. Consequently, Strutz cannot remedy the deficiencies of Racz.
Independent claim 13 now includes the same asymmetric-gap requirement. The Examiner applied a three-reference combination involving Racz, Strutz, and Nakatsu. Yet Nakatsu, while providing general context regarding battery systems and current measurement, is silent on magnetic-core geometry and says nothing about gap asymmetry or any modification to the yoke structures found in Racz. Nakatsu therefore cannot cure what is missing from Racz and Strutz, and the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Nakatsu that would motivate a skilled person to alter the single-gap structure of Racz into the asymmetric transverse-gap geometry now explicitly required.
In addition to these principal references, the Office Action cites several other secondary references, including Morel, Bilbao de Mendizabal, Chae, and Shoji. Applicant has carefully reviewed each of these documents and confirms that none discloses or suggests a magnetic core having two transverse gaps of differing widths or any analogous structure that could reasonably be adapted into the configuration recited in amended claims 1 and 13. These references address subject matter that is fundamentally unrelated to the structural magnetic-core innovations presented here and do not provide any teaching that could cure the deficiencies already present in the Examiner's primary combinations. Because these secondary references fail to disclose or imply the asymmetric-gap feature, they do not supply the missing elements or offer any rationale that would motivate a skilled person to modify the Racz yoke in the manner now claimed. Accordingly, the remainder of the references cited in the Office Action do not alter the analysis and do not overcome the structural gaps in the Examiner's rejections.
The amendments to claims 1 and 13 are firmly grounded in the application as filed and directly reflect a central aspect of the disclosed invention. The asymmetric gap structure plays an important role in managing magnetic flux distribution relevant to both the low-current and high-current Hall chips within the hybrid assembly. Because this structural feature is neither taught nor suggested by any of the cited references, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 13 cannot stand. The applied art fails to disclose the claimed structure, fails to suggest or motivate the modification needed to arrive at it, and provides no reasoned basis for concluding that a skilled person would alter the symmetric single-gap architecture of Racz to create the asymmetric configuration required by the amended claims”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons below:
Racz in fig 7 show different widths in 3 along the y direction. Therefore, it is asymmetrical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Racz
Regarding claim 1, Racz discloses a hybrid current sensor (shown in figs 1-8), comprising: a main conductor (1), having a first end (bottom as shown in figs 1-7) and a second end (top as shown in figs 1-8), wherein a current flow direction of a main current (shown at indicator I) in the main conductor extends between the first end and the second end; a magnetic core (3), disposed at least partially around a middle portion of the main conductor (shown in figs 1-8), the magnetic core having a C-shape at least around an outer surface (shown at figs 1-8), wherein the magnetic core defines a core gap region (shown in fig 7) comprising a first gap (G1) along a transverse direction (Y-direction) and a second gap (G2) along the transverse direction, the second gap being greater than the first gap (as shown in fig 7 as being more protruded at G2. Therefore, the width is greater); and a chip assembly (4), disposed within the core gap region (see figs 1-4 where the chip is within the gap). Racz does not fully disclose wherein the chip assembly comprises a low current chip, and a pair of high current chips.
However, Strutz discloses wherein the chip assembly comprises a low current chip, and a pair of high current chips (fig 5 and par 33 discloses multiple elements on aa package. Therefore, would be below and high sensing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in order to determine current along the conductor.
Regarding claim 2, Racz discloses wherein main conductor comprises a notch region, wherein the chip assembly is disposed adjacent the notch region (see fig 1 where the conductor has a notch region where the core is situated).
Regarding claim 3, Racz discloses wherein the low current chip and the pair of high current chips comprising a Hall sensor (abstract discloses at least one Hall sensor. Therefore, would be multiple hall sensors).
Regarding claim 6, Racz discloses wherein a PCB assembly, wherein the chip assembly is mechanically affixed to a PCB of the PCB assembly via a set of pin assemblies (col 6 lines 26-35 discloses having PCB).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in further view of Shoji et al (USPGPub 20080316655).
Regarding claim 4, Racz in view of Strutz does not fully disclose wherein the pair of high current chips are disposed within a first plane in the core gap region, and wherein the low current chip is disposed within a second plane, different than the first plane, in the core gap region.
However, Shoji discloses wherein the pair of high current chips are disposed within a first plane in the core gap region, and wherein the low current chip is disposed within a second plane, different than the first plane, in the core gap region (fig 3B and par 51 discloses 10 and 20 are on different planes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in further view of Shoji in order to determine current in the conductor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in further view of Bilbao de Mendizabal et al (USPGPub 20200191835).
Regarding claim 5, Racz discloses the low current chip being adapted to measure the main current in a range up to five hundred amps (col 3 lines 10-20 discloses between 0-50A measuring). Racz in view of Strutz does not fully disclose the pair of high current chips being adapted to measure the main current in a range up to 2000 A.
However, Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the pair of high current chips being adapted to measure the main current in a range up to 2000 A (par 83 discloses measuring currents larger than 30A. Therefore, would measure currents up to 2000A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in further view of Bilbao de Mendizabal in order to detect high currents known to be in conductor.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in further view of Chae et al (US Pat No. 9746499).
Regarding claim 7, Racz in view of Strutz does not fully disclose wherein the PCB assembly is disposed in a vertical fashion, wherein a long direction of the PCB assembly extends perpendicularly with respect to a long direction of the main conductor.
However, Chae discloses wherein the PCB assembly is disposed in a vertical fashion, wherein a long direction of the PCB assembly extends perpendicularly with respect to a long direction of the main conductor (fig 9 shows PCB 312 disposed vertically and extend perpendicular). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in further view of Chae in order to accurately measure the current based on orientation.
Regarding claim 8, Racz in view of Strutz does not fully disclose further comprising a housing, disposed at least partially around the PCB assembly and the magnetic core.
However, Chae discloses further comprising a housing, disposed at least partially around the PCB assembly and the magnetic core (fig 2 shows housing 11 disposed around 112 and 111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in further view of Chae in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Regarding claim 9, Racz in view of Strutz does not fully disclose a PCB assembly, electrically coupled to the chip assembly; and a housing, disposed at least partially around the PCB assembly and the magnetic core.
However, Chae discloses a PCB assembly, electrically coupled to the chip assembly; and a housing, disposed at least partially around the PCB assembly and the magnetic core (fig 2 shows housing 11 disposed around 112 and 111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in further view of Chae in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in view of Chae et al (US Pat No. 9746499) in further view of Morel et al (USPGPub 20170010310).
Regarding claim 10, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Chae does not fully disclose wherein the housing comprises: an outer surface comprising a C-shape, disposed adjacent a portion of the magnetic core; and a back cover, disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly.
However, Morel discloses wherein the housing comprises: an outer surface comprising a C-shape, disposed adjacent a portion of the magnetic core; and a back cover, disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly (fig 2B shows 4a and 4b in C-shaped). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Chae in further view of Morel in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Regarding claim 11, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Chae does not fully disclose a side cover, disposed adjacent to a side of the magnetic core and extending perpendicularly to a long direction of the main conductor.
However, Morel discloses a side cover, disposed adjacent to a side of the magnetic core and extending perpendicularly to a long direction of the main conductor (fig 2B shows 4a and 4b in C-shaped and having a side cover.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Chae in further view of Morel in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Regarding claim 12, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Chae does not fully disclose wherein the housing comprises: a front cover, disposed adjacent to a continuous portion of the magnetic core; and a back cover, disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly.
However, Morel discloses wherein the housing comprises: a front cover (4b), disposed adjacent to a continuous portion of the magnetic core (6); and a back cover (4a), disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly (of 8 as shown in fig 2a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Chae in further view of Morel in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in further view of Nakatsu et al (USPGPub 20050161809).
Regarding claim 13, Racz discloses a battery system, comprising; a battery to output a main current in a vehicle; a hybrid current sensor (shown in figs 1-8), coupled to measure the main current along a current flow direction (shown with indicator I), the hybrid current sensor comprising: a busbar (1) structure having a first end (bottom of 1) and a second end (top of 1); a magnetic core (3), disposed at least partially around the busbar structure, the magnetic core having a C-shape that defines a core gap region (14) at least around an outer surface, the core gap region comprising a first gap (G1) along a transverse direction (Y-direction) and a second gap (G2) along the transverse direction, the second gap being greater than the first gap (as shown in fig 7 as being more protruded at G2. Therefore, the width is greater); and a chip assembly (4), disposed within the core gap region (see figs 1-4 where the chip is within the gap).Racz does not fully disclose wherein the chip assembly comprises a low current chip, and a pair of high current chips.
However, Strutz discloses wherein the chip assembly comprises a low current chip, and a pair of high current chips (fig 5 and par 33 discloses multiple elements on aa package. Therefore would be below and high sensing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in order to determine current along the conductor. Racz in view of Strutz does not fully disclose a battery system, comprising; a battery to output a main current in a vehicle.
However, Nakatsu discloses a battery system (shown in figs 1-54), comprising; a battery (6) to output a main current in a vehicle (18. And pars 7 and 138 discloses a battry outputting to a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in further view of Nakatsu in order to power the vehicle.
Claim 14 isrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in view of Nakatsu et al (USPGPub 20050161809) in further view of Shoji et al (USPGPub 20080316655).
Regarding claim 14, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu does not fully disclose wherein the pair of high current chips are disposed within a first plane in the core gap region, and wherein the low current chip is disposed within a second plane, different than the first plane, in the core gap region.
However, Shoji discloses wherein the pair of high current chips are disposed within a first plane in the core gap region, and wherein the low current chip is disposed within a second plane, different than the first plane, in the core gap region (fig 3B and par 51 discloses 10 and 20 are on different planes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in further view of Shoji in order to determine current in the conductor.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in view of Nakatsu et al (USPGPub 20050161809) in further view of Chae et al (US Pat No. 9746499).
Regarding claim 15, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu does not fully disclose wherein the PCB assembly is disposed in a vertical fashion, wherein a long direction of the PCB assembly extends perpendicularly with respect to a long direction of the main conductor.
However, Chae discloses wherein the PCB assembly is disposed in a vertical fashion, wherein a long direction of the PCB assembly extends perpendicularly with respect to a long direction of the main conductor (fig 9 shows PCB 312 disposed vertically and extend perpendicular). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in further view of Chae in order to accurately measure the current based on orientation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in view of Nakatsu et al (USPGPub 20050161809) in further view of Chae et al (US Pat No. 9746499).
Regarding claim 16, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu does not fully disclose further comprising a housing, disposed at least partially around the PCB assembly and the magnetic core.
However, Chae discloses further comprising a housing, disposed at least partially around the PCB assembly and the magnetic core (fig 2 shows housing 11 disposed around 112 and 111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in further view of Chae in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in view of Nakatsu et al (USPGPub 20050161809) in view of Chae et al (US Pat No. 9746499) in further view of Morel et al (USPGPub 20170010310).
Regarding claim 17, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in view of Chae does not fully disclose wherein the housing comprises: an outer surface comprising a C-shape, disposed adjacent a portion of the magnetic core; and a back cover, disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly.
However, Morel discloses wherein the housing comprises: an outer surface comprising a C-shape, disposed adjacent a portion of the magnetic core; and a back cover, disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly (fig 2B shows 4a and 4b in C-shaped). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in view of Chae in further view of Morel in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Regarding claim 18, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in view of Chae does not fully disclose a side cover, disposed adjacent to a side of the magnetic core and extending perpendicularly to a long direction of the main conductor.
However, Morel discloses a side cover, disposed adjacent to a side of the magnetic core and extending perpendicularly to a long direction of the main conductor (fig 2B shows 4a and 4b in C-shaped and having a side cover.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in view of Chae in further view of Morel in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Regarding claim 19, Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in view of Chae does not fully disclose wherein the housing comprises: a front cover, disposed adjacent to a continuous portion of the magnetic core; and a back cover, disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly.
However, Morel discloses wherein the housing comprises: a front cover (4b), disposed adjacent to a continuous portion of the magnetic core (6); and a back cover (4a), disposed adjacent to the PCB assembly (of 8 as shown in fig 2a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in view of Chae in further view of Morel in order to protect circuitry from harm and unwanted interference.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (US Pat No. 7545136) in view of Strutz et al (USPGPb 20200056910 in view of Nakatsu et al (USPGPub 20050161809) in further view of Chae et al (USPGPub 20170261536).
Regarding claim 20, Racz disclose a controller (not fully shown), electrically coupled to receive an output from the low current chip and the pair of high current chips (col 3 lines 40-47 discloses electronic circuitry processing the at least one Hall element). Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu does not fully disclose a controller area network transceiver, coupled to the controller; and a battery management system, coupled to receive an output from the controller area network transceiver.
However, Chae discloses a controller area network transceiver, coupled to the controller; and a battery management system, coupled to receive an output from the controller area network transceiver (par 22 discloses battery management system to a controller and par 32 discloses transmitting information. Therefore, is a network transceiver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Racz in view of Strutz in view of Nakatsu in further view of Chae in order to properly measure the current in a vehicle.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito et al (USPGPub 20090091312): discloses displacement measuring with magnetic yoke extending to a transverse direction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858