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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I(A) and II(A) in the reply filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged. The applicant’s arguments regarding Genus II are persuasive; that election requirement is withdrawn. The traversal of the election requirement of Genus I is on the ground(s) that there is a generic claim and no claims contain limitations falling within the three species among which election is required. This is not found persuasive because the existence of species claims is irrelevant to whether a species election requirement is proper.
Therefore, the requirement as to Genus I is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 will undergo substantive examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS/IDSs) submitted on 6/4/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS/IDSs is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 12-15, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20170307663 to Futakuchi et al.
Regarding claim 1, Futakuchi teaches a device comprising:
a current detection device configured to output an electrical signal indicative of a current through a conductor (¶ [0002]; claim 5); and
a controller configured to receive an input signal indicative of the electrical signal output from the current detection device (claim 10), and generate an indication of a current through the conductor based on the input signal and based on a predetermined response of the electrical signal output from the current detection device in response to current flowing through the conductor (claim 10), the response varying in sensitivity across a magnetic flux density operating range of the current detection device (figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the response of the current detection device comprises at least two substantially linear response zones with varying sensitivities (figure 4), including a lower response zone (left of V1) and an upper response zone (right of V1).
Regarding claim 3, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the device is configured to perform one of multiple functions, and wherein a first function is performed based on the electrical signal output from the current detection device corresponding to the lower response zone, and a second function is performed based on the electrical signal output from the current detection device corresponding to the upper response zone (¶¶ [0096]-[0102] describe various functions performed on the outputs of the linear response zones).
Regarding claim 4, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the first function is a circuit monitoring function in which the device is configured to store or transmit data indicative of the electrical signal (¶ [0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the second function is a protective function in which the device is configured to send a protective control signal based on data indicative of the electrical signal (¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 7, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the device further comprises the conductor operatively coupled to the current detection device (¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the conductor is substantially planar and elongated (figure 3 element 22) and a magnetic field transducer of the current detection device is located adjacent a major face of the conductor (figure 3 element 10).
Regarding claim 12, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the electrical signal output comprises a first substantially linear component corresponding to a lower conductor current range (figure 8 to the left of V1), and a second substantially linear component corresponding to a higher conductor current range (figure 8 to the right of V1).
Regarding claim 13, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the first substantially linear component comprises a relatively greater sensitivity than the second substantially linear component (¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the second substantially linear component comprises a gradient greater than zero (figure 8: the gradient within element 42 is greater than zero).
Regarding claim 15, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the second substantially linear component comprises a gradient that is greater than a current sensor response when the current detection device is substantially fully saturated (figure 8: the gradient within element 42 is greater than zero).
Regarding claim 19, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the first substantially linear response component and the second substantially linear response component correspond to non-overlapping current ranges (figure 8: the regions to the left and right of V1 do not overlap).
Regarding claim 20, Futakuchi teaches a method comprising the steps of:
receiving one or more input signals indicative of one or more electrical signals output from a current detection device (¶ [0002]; claim 5), and
determining an indication of a current based on the one or more input signals and based on a predetermined response of the one or more signals output from the current detection device (claim 10), the predetermined response varying in sensitivity across a magnetic flux density operating range of the current detection device (figure 4).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futakuchi in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20210072320 to Valsan et al.
Regarding claim 6, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 5, but does not teach explicitly wherein the device further comprises an electrical current flow path configured to connect between a source of electrical power and an electrical load, and a disconnect means electrically connected to the electrical current flow path, and wherein the protective control signal is configured to actuate the disconnect means to open the electrical current flow path.
However, Valsan teaches the well-known concept in the art of disconnecting power to a load as a protective measure when an overcurrent fault is detected (¶ [0047]).
It 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 to combine the overcurrent protection via disconnect of Valsan with the device of Futakuchi in order to provide overcurrent protection, thereby preserving the load from associated damage.
Regarding claim 9, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the controller is configured to determine a fault condition based on the indication of the current through the conductor.
However, Valsan teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a fault condition based on the indication of the current through the conductor (¶ [0047]).
It 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 to combine the overcurrent protection of Valsan with the device of Futakuchi in order to provide overcurrent protection, thereby preserving the load from associated damage from that specific fault condition.
Regarding claim 10, Futakuchi in view of Valsan teaches the device of claim 9, and Valsan further teaches wherein a prestored current parameter indicative of the fault condition is configurable in the controller (¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, Futakuchi in view of Valsan teaches the device of claim 9, and Valsan further teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate a first control signal based on the indication of the current (¶ [0047]).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futakuchi.
Regarding claim 16, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 12, but does not teach explicitly wherein the second substantially linear component corresponds to at least approximately 25% of a full range of operation of a magnetic field transducer of the current detection device.
However, the relative percentage of a full range of operation of a magnetic field transducer being substantially linear would depend entirely on the specific magnetic field transducer to which the linear component is being compared.
Therefore, it 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 to select an appropriate magnetic field transducer to allow for the substantially linear component to correspond to whatever percentage of full range operation the designer desires, particularly given that such a relative comparison would have no practical effect on the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 12, but does not teach explicitly wherein the second substantially linear component corresponds to at least approximately 50% of a full range of operation of a magnetic field transducer of the current detection device.
However, the relative percentage of a full range of operation of a magnetic field transducer being substantially linear would depend entirely on the specific magnetic field transducer to which the linear component is being compared.
Therefore, it 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 to select an appropriate magnetic field transducer to allow for the substantially linear component to correspond to whatever percentage of full range operation the designer desires, particularly given that such a relative comparison would have no practical effect on the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 18, Futakuchi teaches the device of claim 12, but does not teach explicitly wherein the second substantially linear component corresponds to at least approximately 80% of a full range of operation of a magnetic field transducer of the current detection device.
However, the relative percentage of a full range of operation of a magnetic field transducer being substantially linear would depend entirely on the specific magnetic field transducer to which the linear component is being compared.
Therefore, it 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 to select an appropriate magnetic field transducer to allow for the substantially linear component to correspond to whatever percentage of full range operation the designer desires, particularly given that such a relative comparison would have no practical effect on the operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent No. 11480590 to Racz et al. discloses an offset current sensor structure having at least one current sensor is disposed on, over, adjacent to or in contact with the conductor and is offset from a center of the conductor in an offset direction orthogonal to the current direction and optionally parallel to a conductor surface.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20200182921 to Jakupi et al. discloses a combined low frequency and high frequency current sensor having a bead body configured to provide measurable magnetic flux through the magnetic flux-density sensing device, for currents in the power wire having low frequencies.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20140266240 to Haensgen et al. discloses systems and methods for energy harvesting and current and voltage measurements having a fault measurement mode in which one or more Hall sensors are activated such that high currents can be accurately measured.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights