DETAILED ACTION
This action is filed in response to the application filed on 5/08/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed on 5/08/2024. This IDS has been considered.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites, “a distance between the printed circuit board and the magnetic core is substantially equal along an inner limit of the magnetic core.” The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites, “wherein a cross section of the through-hole is substantially shaped as an ellipse, a stadium, or a rectangle.” The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites, “the at least two excitation windings, configured to distribute a magnetic field produced by a current in the at least two conductive tracks substantially uniform within the magnetic core.” The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites, “an excitation voltage of opposite polarity and substantially equal magnitude.” The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3-8, and 13-14 are dependent upon Claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 11-12 are dependent upon Claim 1 and Claim 10 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1 and 10 and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofheinz (CN103001175 B) in view of Gudel (US20130154629 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Hofheinz teaches an electrical circuitry for detecting a fault current in an electric vehicle charging station (e.g. see [pg. 2 paragraph 6] “This situation may occur for providing AC voltage and equipped in the electric vehicle with an A-type residual current device (RCD) of the charging station for charging”), comprising:
a printed circuit board (e.g. see [pg. 4 paragraph 4] “in the form of an independent structure unit Preferably, monitoring device configured in the form of a printed circuit board is mounted in the unit or any device”); and
a fluxgate current sensor for detecting a fault current (e.g. see [pg. 3 paragraph 5] “if the monitoring device comprises a sensor for detecting other measuring AC current transformer for fault current circuit, then this is more advantageous. by the other current transformer for measuring circuit, also can be in a manner similar to the detected DC fault current to detect damage the function of the AC fault current to ensure that the A-shaped residual current device (RCD) protection function”).
While Hofheinz teaches a printed circuit board and a sensor, Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose a printed circuit board comprising at least two conductive tracks for conducting electrical charging currents for charging and/or discharging the electric vehicle along the printed circuit board; and a fluxgate current sensor for detecting a fault current in the at least two conductive tracks comprising a magnetic core with a through-hole arranged around the at least two conductive tracks passing through the through-hole of the magnetic core, wherein a cross section of the through-hole is shaped such that a distance between the printed circuit board and the magnetic core is substantially equal along an inner limit of the magnetic core.
In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches printed circuit board comprising at least two conductive tracks for conducting electrical charging currents for charging and/or discharging the electric vehicle along the printed circuit board (e.g. see [0020] “Alternatively, the primary conductors may be formed as conductive tracks deposited on a board (e.g. a printed circuit board)”); and
- a fluxgate current sensor for detecting a fault current in the at least two conductive tracks comprising a magnetic core (e.g. see [0010] “disclosed herein is a toroidal fluxgate current transducer comprising a ring shaped fluxgate sensing unit comprising a dielectric or insulating support, a saturable magnetic core mounted on the support”) with a through-hole arranged around the at least two conductive tracks passing through the through-hole of the magnetic core (e.g. see [0011] “the terms "toroidal" and "ring" used herein are not limited to circular shapes but encompass square, rectangular, polygonal, elliptical or any regular or irregular closed or almost closed shape surrounding an aperture to allow one or more primary conductors to pass therethrough”).
wherein a cross section of the through-hole is shaped such that a distance between the printed circuit board and the magnetic core is substantially equal along an inner limit of the magnetic core (e.g. see [0036] “The essentially U-shaped or V-shaped primary conductor unit 19 is configured to be inserted through the central passage 16 of the transducer 2 starting from one end and feeding through the passage 16 until it is symmetrically positioned, with the connection ends 24 projecting beyond the mounting face 14”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the electric vehicle charging station, circuit board, and sensor embodiments of Hofheinz with the conductors and fluxgate sensor of Gudel for the purpose of detecting fault currents with the advantage of a plurality of conductive tracks to increase the accuracy of any determination in addition to a fluxgate sensor which operates with increased sensitivity which also promotes the most accurate fault determinations.
Regarding Claim 2, Hofheinz and Gudel teach the limitations of Claim 1. While Hofheinz teaches a magnetic core (e.g. see [pg. 2 paragraph 5]), Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein a cross section of the through-hole is substantially shaped as an ellipse, a stadium, or a rectangle. In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches wherein a cross section of the through-hole is substantially shaped as an ellipse, a stadium, or a rectangle (e.g. see [0032] “The toroidal fluxgate sensing unit 6 may have a closed circular shape as shown in the figures, or may have other closed or almost closed shapes such as square, rectangular, polygonal, elliptical or any regular or irregular shape surrounding an aperture to allow the one or more primary conductors to pass therethrough”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the magnetic core of Hofheinz with the through-hole shape of Gudel for the purpose of determining fault currents with the advantage of a more compact through-hole to occupy less space.
Regarding Claim 3, Hofheinz and Gudel teach the limitations of Claim 1. While Hofheinz teaches a magnetic core (e.g. see [pg. 2 paragraph 5]), Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic core comprises a single piece of continuous magnetic material arranged around the through-hole. In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches wherein the magnetic core comprises a single piece of continuous magnetic material arranged around the through-hole (e.g. see [0040] “The saturable core unit 30 comprises a saturable core 38 that may advantageously be in a form of a strip or band of amorphous magnetic material such as Metglas 2714A”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the magnetic core of Hofheinz with that of Gudel for the purpose of determining fault currents with the advantage of improved magnetic permeability of the core.
Regarding Claim 4, Hofheinz and Gudel teach the limitations of Claim 1. While Hofheinz teaches a printed circuit board (e.g. see [pg. 4 paragraph 4]), Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the printed circuit board is configured such that the fluxgate current sensor can be moved over the portion of the printed circuit board to a designated position.
In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches wherein a portion of the printed circuit board is configured such that the fluxgate current sensor can be moved over the portion of the printed circuit board to a designated position (e.g. see [0020] “Alternatively, the primary conductors may be formed as conductive tracks deposited on a board (e.g. a printed circuit board),” and [Fig. 2d]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the printed circuit board of Hofheinz with the configuration of Gudel for the purpose of constructing the fault detection system with the advantage of simplified assembly.
Regarding Claim 5, Hofheinz and Gudel teach the limitations of Claim 1. While Hofheinz teaches a sensor, Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises a protective housing enclosing at least part of the magnetic core, configured to protect the magnetic core from stress.
In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches wherein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises a protective housing enclosing at least part of the magnetic core, configured to protect the magnetic core from stress (e.g. see [0013] “The sensing unit may further comprise dielectric housing shells mounted around the excitation coil and saturable core and forming a support around which the secondary core is wound. The dielectric shell may advantageously comprise a plurality of spaced apart inwardly radial fins that serve to laterally support the coil and to position the sensing unit in a housing of the transducer.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the sensor of Hofheinz with the housing of Gudel for the purpose of protecting the sensor with the advantage of reducing stress of the system.
Regarding Claim 6, Hofheinz and Gudel teach the limitations of Claim 1. While Hofheinz teaches a printed circuit board and a sensor, Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluxgate current sensor and printed circuit board comprise at least one attachment means for attaching the fluxgate current sensor to the printed circuit board.
In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches wherein the fluxgate current sensor and printed circuit board comprise at least one attachment means for attaching the fluxgate current sensor to the printed circuit board (e.g. see [0013] “The dielectric shell may advantageously comprise protuberances engaging in complementary orifices in a circuit board of the transducer to position the circuit board with respect to the sensing unit and the housing of the transducer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the printed circuit board and sensor of Hofheinz with the connection method of Gudel for the purpose of assembling the fault current detection device with the advantage of a secure connection method to ensure the continued operation of the device.
Regarding Claim 13, Hofheinz and Gudel teach the limitations of Claim 1. Hofheinz further discloses a switch configured to interrupt the electrical charging current upon detecting the fault current (e.g. see [pg. 3 last paragraph] “the monitoring device of the invention includes a proximity switch that activates the external electric device and for instrument exchange data with the communication interface of other. Preferably, the communication interface is equipped with a relay output end for activating the device. Thus, the monitoring device according to the invention the detection of possible threat to the function of fault current is converted to control closing device and making an output feed device of fault closing the output signal,” and {pg. 4 paragraph 6] “In a further variant, the monitoring device comprises an output feeding device for closing the closing device with failure. In this embodiment, the closing device is assigned to the monitoring device and can be integrated into one unit with the monitoring device”).
Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose at least two conductive tracks. In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches at least two conductive tracks (e.g. see [0020] “Alternatively, the primary conductors may be formed as conductive tracks deposited on a board (e.g. a printed circuit board)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the electrical vehicle charging fault detection output of Hofheinz with the multiple conductive tracks of Gudel for the purpose of detecting faults with the advantage of multiple conductive tracks for increased accuracy of fault determinations.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofheinz (CN103001175 B) in view of Gudel (US20130154629 A1), and in further view of Yuan (US 20190331714 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Hofheinz and Gudel teach the limitations of Claim 1. Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose herein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises at least two excitation windings wound around the magnetic core.
In the same field of endeavor, Yuan teaches wherein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises at least two excitation windings wound around the magnetic core (e.g. see [0022] “In this embodiment, the excitation coil 211 is wound around one side of the magnetic core 223, and the excitation coil 222 is symmetrically wound around another side of the magnetic core 223. The excitation coils 221 and 222 are, for example, two wires wound around the magnetic core 223 in the same winding direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the magnetic core of Hofheinz with the at least two windings of Yuan for the purpose of detecting fault currents with the advantage of creating an excitation signal in order to dynamically control the fluxgate sensor.
Regarding Claim 8, Hofheinz, Gudel, and Yuan teach the limitations of Claim 7. Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two excitation windings alternate each other. In the same field of endeavor, Yuan teaches wherein the at least two excitation windings alternate each other (e.g. see [0022] “In an embodiment, the excitation coils 221 and 222 may be the same wires wound around the magnetic core 223 in opposite directions to symmetrically sense the magnetic core 223”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the magnetic core of Hofheinz with the windings of Yuan for the purpose of detecting fault currents with the advantage of symmetrically sensing the magnetic core.
Regarding Claim 9, Hofheinz, Gudel, and Yuan teach the limitations of Claim 7. Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises a magnetic shield, partially enclosing the magnetic core and the at least two excitation windings, configured to distribute a magnetic field produced by a current in the at least two conductive tracks substantially uniform within the magnetic core.
In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches wherein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises a magnetic shield, partially enclosing the magnetic core and the at least two excitation windings, configured to distribute a magnetic field produced by a current in the at least two conductive tracks substantially uniform within the magnetic core (e.g. see [0031] “The transducer further comprises an inner magnetic shield 12 and an outer magnetic shield 10 positioned respectively radially inside, and radially around the fluxgate sensing unit 6… The outer shield 10 serves to reduce the influence of external magnetic fields, in particular magnetic fields that are generated outside of the central passage 16, such as disturbances from electrical conductors, electrical motors and other magnetic field generating equipment positioned around or in the proximity of the current transducer. The inner shield 12 serves to form a magnetic circuit that redistributes the magnetic field of a primary conductor extending through the central passage 16 in order to reduce the effect off-center primary conductors extending through the passage 16.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the sensor and magnetic core of Hofheinz with the magnetic shield of Gudel for the purpose of detecting fault currents with the advantage of evenly distributing the magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 10, Hofheinz, Gudel, and Yuan teach the limitations of Claim 7. Hofheinz further discloses wherein the current sensor further comprises driving circuitry (e.g. see [pg. 3 last paragraph] “The monitoring device of the invention includes a proximity switch that activates the external electric device and for instrument exchange data with the communication interface of other”).
Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises a driving circuitry configured to alternately drive one of the at least two excitation windings with an excitation voltage of opposite polarity and substantially equal magnitude.
In the same field of endeavor, Yuan teaches wherein the fluxgate current sensor further comprises a driving circuitry configured to alternately drive one of the at least two excitation windings with an excitation voltage of opposite polarity and substantially equal magnitude (e.g. see [0020] “In this embodiment, each of the excitation coils 121 and 122 and the pickup coil 24 is wound around the magnetic core 123. In this embodiment, the driving circuit 110 is coupled to the excitation coils 121 and 122 to provide a driving signal to the excitation coils 121 and 122, so that one pair of regions having opposite magnetization directions is generated in the magnetic core 123”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the sensor and driving circuitry of Hofheinz with the driving circuitry of Yuan for the purpose of detecting fault currents with the advantage of generating a magnetic field change which allows the current sensor to output an accurate reading of the current.
Regarding Claim 11, Hofheinz, Gudel, and Yuan teach the limitations of Claim 10. Hofheinz further discloses wherein the driving circuitry is further configured to generate an output signal based on the presence of a fault current (e.g. see [pg. 3 last paragraph] “the monitoring device of the invention includes a proximity switch that activates the external electric device and for instrument exchange data with the communication interface of other. Preferably, the communication interface is equipped with a relay output end for activating the device. Thus, the monitoring device according to the invention the detection of possible threat to the function of fault current is converted to control closing device and making an output feed device of fault closing the output signal”).
Hofheinz does not explicitly disclose at least two conductive tracks. In the same field of endeavor, Gudel teaches at least two conductive tracks (e.g. see [0020] “Alternatively, the primary conductors may be formed as conductive tracks deposited on a board (e.g. a printed circuit board)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the electrical vehicle charging fault detection output of Hofheinz with the multiple conductive tracks of Gudel for the purpose of detecting faults with the advantage of multiple conductive tracks for increased accuracy of fault determinations.
Regarding Claim 12, Hofheinz, Gudel, and Yuan teach the limitations of Claim 10. Hofheinz further discloses wherein herein the driving circuitry is further integrated on the printed circuit board (e.g. see [pg. 4 paragraph 4] “in the form of an independent structure unit Preferably, monitoring device configured in the form of a printed circuit board is mounted in the unit or any device,” and [pg. 3 last paragraph] “the monitoring device of the invention includes a proximity switch that activates the external electric device and for instrument exchange data with the communication interface of other”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20180056802 A1 teaches embodiments generally relates to charging an electrically operated vehicle with the aid of a charging cable which is formed with a residual current arrangement for detecting a direct current.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYLA GAVIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1592. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/NYLA GAVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights