DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/7/2024, 4/17/2025, and 11/5/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “an instrumentation amplifier with three operational amplifiers”, “an element performance error correction circuit and a filtering circuit”, and “a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits” as recited in claim 5.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Please remove the phrase “The disclosure relates to” from the start of the abstract.
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.
Written Description
Claims 5-9 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “an interference suppression circuit, used for an element performance error correction circuit and a filtering circuit,” and “a multi-band feedback circuit, comprising a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits for ensuring that transmission characteristics of different frequencies are consistent, each of the plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits having limited frequency band.”
While a filtering circuit is a well-known circuit component, the terms “an interference suppression circuit”, “an element performance error correction circuit”, “a multi-band feedback circuit”, and “a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits” are not standard terms in the art and it is unclear what structural components are required to achieve these components. In addition, the drawings identify an interference suppression circuit 202 and a multi-band feedback circuit 203 as generic boxes without identifying any particular structure, and element an element performance error correction circuit and a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits are not supported in the drawings at all.
The disclosure discusses these components in [0035]-[0042], however, the disclosure fails to provide specific examples of these components or any structure. Therefore, what components are required to achieved the invention as claimed and whether the applicant possessed the invention at the time the application was filed.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “a driving circuit, configured to adjust the feedback current output to the feedback winding based on the amplified voltage signal output by the signal processing unit, to enable compensation magnetic field equal in size and opposite in direction to a primary magnetic field;”. The examiner is unaware of any standard definition for “a driving circuit” capable of performing all the limitations as claimed, and the disclosure fails to provide any particular structure for the driving circuit or any working examples. Paragraph [0067] teaches:
[ 0067] The feedback compensation section consists of the driving circuit, the feedback winding and the output circuit. The amplified output voltage drives the push-pull transistor, and the transistor outputs the feedback current Ic to the compensation coil. During the period of not exceeding the measuring range, the magnetic field generated by the output current of the operational amplifier and transistor operating in the linear region is equal in size and opposite in direction to the measured magnetic field. The feedback winding receives the feedback current output by the transistor, the magnetic field may be generated by the feedback current, and represented as Bc: (see equation 3).
As best understood by the examiner, the driving circuit 302 comprises a push-pull transistor, however, the configuration to achieve such a configuration are not disclosed and the figures to not illustrate any transistors. It is unclear what components are required to achieved the invention as claimed and whether the applicant possessed the invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 7-9 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement through a dependence on claim 6.
Enablement
Claims 5-9 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “an interference suppression circuit, used for an element performance error correction circuit and a filtering circuit,” and “a multi-band feedback circuit, comprising a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits for ensuring that transmission characteristics of different frequencies are consistent, each of the plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits having limited frequency band.”
The above elements do not appear to have standard terms in the art and are not supported in the disclosure with specific structure corresponding to the elements as claimed. Therefore, it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what components are required to achieve the limitations as claimed, how to design a circuit to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, or to determine whether a prior art circuit would reasonably infringe on the invention as claimed. Further, it is unclear whether the limitations as claimed are novel or elements which would be understood as routine and conventional in view of prior art. The applicant fails to recite any specific structure for the claimed elements, provide any clear and specific examples of prior art which teach the above limitations as known or conventional in the art, provide any evidence of working examples, or direction for achieving the limitations as claimed, and the examiner is unable to make a reasonable determination of the amount of predictability or experimentation needed. While current sensors comprising feedback windings based on zero-flux principles are known in the art, the examiner is unaware of a circuit comprising an instrumentation amplifier with three operational amplifiers, an interference suppression circuit, used for an element performance error correction circuit, or a multi-band feedback circuit, comprising a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the feedback compensation unit comprises: … a driving circuit, configured to adjust the feedback current output to the feedback winding based on the amplified voltage signal output by the signal processing unit, to enable a compensation magnetic field equal in size and opposite in direction to a primary magnetic field;”.
The term “driving circuit” which performs the functional limitation as claimed does not appear to have a standard definition in the art. The specification, in [0050], [0066]-[0067], and [0083] suggest a feedback compensation unit comprises feedback winding 301, driving circuit 302, and output circuit 303, not supported in the disclosure with specific structure corresponding to the elements as claimed. Therefore, it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what components are required to achieve the limitations as claimed, how to design a circuit to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, or to determine whether a prior art circuit would reasonably infringe on the invention as claimed.
Further, the applicant fails to provide any clear and specific examples of prior art which teach the above limitations, provide any evidence of working examples, or direction for achieving the limitations as claimed, and the examiner is unable to make a reasonable determination of the amount of predictability or experimentation needed. It is unclear whether the limitations as claimed are believed to be novel or elements which would be understood as routine and conventional in view of prior art. While current sensors comprising feedback windings based on zero-flux principles are known in the art, the examiner is unaware of a circuit comprising an instrumentation amplifier with three operational amplifiers, an interference suppression circuit, used for an element performance error correction circuit, or a multi-band feedback circuit, comprising a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits as recited in the claim.
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 1-10 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 claims 1-5 and 8, the claim recites “new magnetoresistance elements”, but it is unclear how the word “new” is intended to further limit the claim as magnetoresistance elements are already well-known in the art as a type of magnetic field sensor. The disclosure does not provide any specific definition for interpreting a “new magnetoresistance element”. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as any magnetoresistance element known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by the term “circular magnetic gathering ring”. The term does not have a clear definition in the art and the specification fails to define what constitutes a “circular magnetic gathering ring” as recited in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted wherein a core having a circular cross-section reads on the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the scope of protection sought is unclear to the examiner. The claim recites:
“… a detecting circuit, comprising an instrumentation amplifier with three operational amplifiers, wherein the detecting circuit is configured to amplify the voltage signal output by the magnetoelectric conversion unit, and output the amplified voltage signal to the feedback compensation unit;
an interference suppression circuit, used for an element performance error correction circuit and a filtering circuit, wherein the element performance error correction circuit is configured to generate a regulating current based on the voltage signal output by the magnetoelectric conversion unit, and the filtering circuit is configured to filter high- frequency magnetic field signals coupled by the N new magnetoresistance elements to ensure a low-pass characteristic; and
a multi-band feedback circuit, comprising a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits for ensuring that the transmission characteristics of different frequencies are consistent, each of the plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits having a limited frequency band.”
The underlined limitations above are not clearly understood by the examiner, and do not appear to have standard terms in the art and are not supported in the disclosure with specific structure corresponding to the elements as claimed. Therefore, it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what components are required to achieve the limitations as claimed, how to design a circuit to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, or to determine whether a prior art circuit would reasonably infringe on the invention as claimed. Further, it is unclear whether the limitations as claimed are novel or elements which would be understood as routine and conventional in view of prior art. While current sensors comprising feedback windings based on zero-flux principles are known in the art, it is unclear how the above limitations are configured as claimed.
For example, it is unclear to the examiner how a driver circuit would comprise an instrumentation amplifier with three operational amplifiers as claimed.
The limitation “an interference suppression circuit, used for an element performance error correction circuit” is unclear. The application fails to define any structure for an interference suppression circuit or an element performance error correction circuit, and it is unclear if an element performance error correction circuit is a component of an interference suppression circuit.
Regarding, “a multi-band feedback circuit, comprising a plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits for ensuring that the transmission characteristics of different frequencies are consistent, each of the plurality of dynamic output feedback control circuits having a limited frequency band”, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation, or what structure corresponds to the limitations as claimed.
For the purpose of examination, the above limitations are not understood by the examiner in order to perform any sort of reasonable search. Therefore, the claims stand rejected as outlined above.
Regarding claim 6, the scope of protection sought is unclear to the examiner. It is unclear what is meant by “a driving circuit, configured to adjust the feedback current output to the feedback winding based on the amplified voltage signal output by the signal processing unit, to enable a compensation magnetic field equal in size and opposite in direction to a primary magnetic field;”. The term “driving circuit” does not have a clear definition in the art and the specification fails to provide any examples of a “driver circuit”. Paragraph [0083] of the pending specification states, “The feedback compensation section consists of the driving circuit, the feedback winding and the output circuit. The amplified output voltage drives the push-pull transistor, and the transistor outputs the feedback current Ic to the compensation coil.” It is unclear what “amplified output voltage” and “push-pull transistor” are being referenced and if these components are to be interpreted as part of the driving circuit. As best understood, by the examiner, any zero-flux type current sensor comprising a feedback winding would inherently include component(s) equivalent to a driver circuit to drive the feedback winding.
Claims not specifically rejected above are rejected through a dependence on at least one of claims 1-5 and 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 2663991 (referenced herein as D1 and cited in the IDS filed 4/17/2025 with a machine translation provided with the pending rejection) in view of CN 113252960 (referenced herein as D2 and cited in the IDS filed 6/7/2025 with a machine translation provided with the pending rejection).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a multi-air-gap magnetoresistance current sensor for alternating current-direct current (see Fig. 1 of CN 2663991; see abstract of the machine translation. While the abstract states the current sensor is for high voltage direct current, the sensor comprises all the limitations as claimed and would reasonably be configured to detect an AC current by measuring a magnetic field from an AC current in a manner analogous to the DC current.), comprising:
a magnetoelectric conversion unit (Hall sensors H1 to H8, windings W1 to W8 and the iron core; see Fig. 1), configured to: obtain a magnetic field signal of a target current-carrying wire with a to-be-measured current (Hall elements H1 to H8 measure a magnetic field generated by a current of the measured current bus 8; see Fig. 1; see [0031]-[0033] of the machine translation); and convert the magnetic field signal into a voltage signal and output the voltage signal to a signal processing unit (Hall elements H1 to H8 generate voltage signals UH1 to UH8 to a computer 2 comprising a processing unit; see Fig. 1; see Figs. 1-2; see [0030]), wherein the magnetoelectric conversion unit comprises an iron core and N Hall elements connected in parallel, N air-gap openings are symmetrically arranged on the iron core, and the N Hall elements are respectively located at centers of the N air-gap openings, N >3 and N is a positive integer (Hall elements H1 to H8 are arranged in air gaps symmetrically arranged around the core; see Fig. 1; see [0008], [0012], [0031]-[0033]);
the signal processing unit, configured to: amplify the voltage signal output by the magnetoelectric conversion unit, and output the amplified voltage signal to a feedback compensation unit (A1 to A4 and filtering circuits 3-6 are signal processing circuits amplify the voltage signal UH1 to UH8 and output the signals to feedback compensation windings W1 to W8; see [0031]); and
the feedback compensation unit, configured to: adjust a feedback current based on the amplified voltage signal output by the signal processing unit to enable the Hall elements to operate at zero magnetic flux (The feedback winding allows the sensor to achieve a zero-flux detection principle; see [0031]); measure a value of the feedback current (Uf1 to Uf4 are measured across resistors Rs1 to Rs4 by the computer 2, and wherein the current would be readily determined in accordance to Ohms law without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results); and obtain a value of the to-be-measured current based on the value of the feedback current, and output the value of the to-be-measured current (the measured values Us1 to Us4 are sent to computer 2 for data processing and the magnitude of the measured current after processing is then sent to display 1. See [0033]).
D1 fails to teach wherein conversion unit comprises N new magnetoresistance elements.
D2 teaches wherein conversion unit comprises N new magnetoresistance elements (the sensor may comprise a TMR; see 2nd paragraph of page 2 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of substituting a Hall sensor with a tunneling magnetoresistive sensors as taught in D2 into D1 in order to gain the advantage of high sensitivity, fast response frequency, low power and good linearity.
Regarding claim 2, D1 teaches wherein the iron core is a circular magnetic gathering ring and is uniformly wound with a feedback winding, and the magnetoelectric conversion unit further comprises a power supply circuit which is respectively connected to the N new magnetoresistance elements for power supply (a core 9 is uniformly wrapped by a feedback winding 11 and a power supply comprising amplifiers A1 to A4 are coupled to the N Hall sensors; see Figs. 1 and 4); and
when the target current-carrying wire with the to-be-measured current is placed at a center of the iron core, the N new magnetoresistance elements are used for obtaining the magnetic field signal of the target current-carrying wire with the to-be-measured current, converting the magnetic field signal into the voltage signal, and outputting the voltage signal to the signal processing unit (bus 8 is placed in the center of the core and operates in an equivalent manner as claimed; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, D1 teaches wherein the operation that the N new magnetoresistance elements are used for obtaining the magnetic field signal of the target current-carrying wire with the to-be-measured current, converting the magnetic field signal into the voltage signal and outputting the voltage signal to the signal processing unit, comprises:
obtaining an input voltage Vi of each of the N new magnetoresistance elements by the following formula:
Vi=Ki Ii (Bin - Bc)
where Ki is a sensitivity of i-th new magnetoresistance element, Ii is a control current of the i-th new magnetoresistance element, Bin is a primary original magnetic field, and Bc is a compensation magnetic field generated by the feedback current; and
based on the input voltage of each of the N new magnetoresistance elements, synthesizing and obtaining a combined voltage of the N new magnetoresistance elements according to an equivalent circuit of parallel capacitors, and outputting the combined voltages to the signal processing unit (The above equation would be inherent to the system of D1, since magnetic sensors, including Hall sensors and magnetoresistive sensors, are well-known to have an output voltage proportional to a sensitivity, applied current, and a magnetic field applied to the sensor. Since the sensor operates as a zero magnetic flux measurement, the field from the feedback coil would be arranged opposed to the field from the current, thus the total magnetic field seen by a sensor would be given as the difference between the field from the current and the field from the feedback coil. See [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, D1 fails to teach wherein the new magnetoresistance element is a tunneling magnetoresistance element, however, D2 teaches wherein the magnetic sensor may be a Hall sensor, AMR, GMR, or TME sensor, wherein TMR gain the advantage of high sensitivity, fast response frequency, low power and good linearity. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, D1 teaches wherein the feedback compensation unit comprises:
the feedback winding, uniformly wound on the iron core, and configured to pass the feedback current (feedback windings W1 to W8 are wound on the core to pass feedback current If1 to If8; see Fig. 1);
a driving circuit, configured to adjust the feedback current output to the feedback winding based on the amplified voltage signal output by the signal processing unit, to enable a compensation magnetic field equal in size and opposite in direction to a primary magnetic field (resistors Rs1 to Rs4 may be broadly interpreted as driving circuit as the resistor are connected to the feedback windings to balance the main magnetic flux generated by the measured current, see [0033]); and
an output circuit, configured to: measure the value of the feedback current, obtain the value of the to-be-measured current based on the value of the feedback current, and output the value of the to-be-measured current (computer 2 and display 1 output the value of the feedback current, wherein the computer 2 determines the current based on the voltages Us1-Us4 measured from resistors Rs1 to Rs4; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the output circuit is further configured to: divide the value of the feedback current by a ratio of coil turns to obtain the value of the to-be-measured current, however, this corresponds to known calculations for determining the current using a transformer. Since the sensor of D1 corresponds to a zero magnetic flux measurement, the magnetic flux generated by the feedback coil should be equal to the field generated by the bus coil. The bus coil corresponds to a primary coil of 1 turn and the feedback coil corresponds to a secondary coil of N turns. As best understood by the examiner, the limitations as claimed correspond to solving the equation of a transformer to find the unknown current of the busbar in terms of the measured feedback current and the number of turns of the feedback coil.
Regarding claims 8 -9, D1 teaches wherein the multi-air-gap magnetoresistance current sensor for alternating current-direct current further comprises a ring housing for carrying the iron core wound with the feedback winding and the N new magnetoresistance elements connected in parallel; and wherein the ring housing is voltage insulated by using an insulating layer (the core 9 and winding 11 are formed with an outer insulating layer and protection layer 15 as claimed, wherein the layer 15 would reasonably be interpreted as a housing in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation; see Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches a method for measuring a current, comprising: using the multi-air-gap magnetoresistance current sensor for alternating current-direct current of claim 1 to measure a to-be-measured current in a target current-carrying wire, to obtain a value of the to-be-measured current and output the value of the to-be- measured current; wherein the target current-carrying wire is at a center of an iron core of the multi-air-gap magnetoresistance current sensor for alternating current-direct current (see the rejection of claim 1; see Fig. 1 of D1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights