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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-34 of U.S. Application 18/737,108 filed on March 04, 2026 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but are moot for new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 19-25, 27, 28, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over Racz et al (USPGPub 20170184636).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Racz
Regarding claim 1, Racz discloses a device (figs 1-13), comprising: a lead frame (1) comprising a conductor (5), the conductor including a current input segment (left part of 5) and a current output segment (right side of 5) ;a semiconductor die (3) ;a spacer (2) between the semiconductor die and the conductor (shown in figs 4 and 5); and a magnetic concentrator (16) that overlaps at least partially with the conductor at least one of the current input segment or the current output segment (overlaps at least the output segments as shown in at least fig 9).
Regarding claim 2, Racz discloses wherein the spacer includes a dielectric material (par 73 discloses being a dielectric film).
Regarding claim 3, Racz discloses wherein the spacer includes an insulation material (par 73 discloses being a dielectric film).
Regarding claim 4, Racz discloses wherein the spacer includes at least one of: a glass material, a polymer material, or a silicon material (par 73 discloses being a glass or polymer material).
Regarding claim 6, Racz discloses wherein the magnetic concentrator has at least one of: a circular shape, an elliptical shape, or a polygonal shape (shown in figs 3-9 as polygonal shape).
Regarding claim 7, Racz discloses wherein the magnetic concentrator has an octagonal shape (shown in figs 3-9 as octagonal shape).
Regarding claim 9, Racz discloses wherein the semiconductor die includes a Hall effect sensor, and the Hall effect sensor overlaps at least partially with the magnetic concentrator (shown in figs 2-13 as 13 overlaps as shown).
Regarding claim 13, Racz discloses wherein the semiconductor die comprises: a first Hall effect sensor (13.1) that overlaps a first edge of the magnetic concentrator; and a second Hall effect sensor (13.2) that overlaps a second edge of the magnetic concentrator opposite the first edge (shown in figs 5-13 as overlapping the concentrator).
Regarding claim 19, Racz discloses wherein the magnetic concentrator is electroplated onto the semiconductor die (par 18 discloses being made from electroplating).
Regarding claim 20, Racz discloses wherein the device is part of an in-package current sensor (abstract and par 63 discloses being a part of a package).
Regarding claim 21, Racz discloses a current sensor (figs 1-13) comprising: a conductor (5) including a current input (left of 5) segment and a current output segment (right side of 5); a semiconductor die (3) ;a spacer (2) between the semiconductor die and conductor; (shown in figs 2-7) and a magnetic concentrator on the semiconductor die, the magnetic concentrator overlapping at least partially with at least one of the current input segment or the current output segment (overlaps at least the output segments as shown in at least fig 9).
Regarding claim 22, Racz discloses further comprising a leadframe, and the conductor is part of the leadframe (abstract discloses the conductor being a leadframe).
Regarding claim 23, Racz discloses wherein the spacer includes a dielectric material (par 73 discloses being a dielectric film).
Regarding claim 24, Racz discloses wherein the spacer includes an insulation material (par 73 discloses being a dielectric film).
Regarding claim 25, Racz discloses wherein the spacer includes at least one of: a glass material, a polymer material, or a silicon material (par 73 discloses being a glass or polymer material).
Regarding claim 27, Racz discloses wherein the magnetic concentrator has at least one of: a circular shape, an elliptical shape, or a polygonal shape (shown in figs 3-9 as polygonal shape).
Regarding claim 28, Racz discloses wherein the magnetic concentrator has an octagonal shape (shown in figs 3-9 as octagonal shape).
Regarding claim 30, Racz discloses wherein the semiconductor die includes a Hall effect sensor, and the Hall effect sensor overlaps at least partially with the magnetic concentrator (shown in figs 2-13 as 13 overlaps as shown).
Regarding claim 34, Racz discloses wherein the device is part of an in-package current sensor (abstract and par 63 discloses being a part of a package).
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 5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (USPGPub 20170184636).
Regarding claim 5, Racz does not fully disclose wherein the spacer has a thickness of 100-150 micrometers.
However, It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention taught by Racz to be limited to wherein the spacer has a thickness of 100-150 micrometers in order to create a sensor in which the conductor and semiconductor die can be properly separated.
Regarding claim 26, Racz does not fully disclose wherein the spacer has a thickness of 100-150 micrometers.
However, It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention taught by Racz to be limited to wherein the spacer has a thickness of 100-150 micrometers in order to create a sensor in which the conductor and semiconductor die can be properly separated.
Claims 8 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al (USPGPub 20170184636) in view of Franke et al (USPGPub 20130015839).
Regarding claim 8, Racz does not fully disclose wherein the magnetic concentrator includes an iron-nickel alloy.
However, Franke discloses wherein the magnetic concentrator includes an iron-nickel alloy (pars 8 and 11 discloses using soft iron or a MU alloy. Therefore, could be iron-nickle alloy).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Racz in view of Franke in order to concentrate magnetic fields using the material.
Regarding claim 29, Racz does not fully disclose wherein the magnetic concentrator includes an iron-nickel alloy.
However, Franke discloses wherein the magnetic concentrator includes an iron-nickel alloy (pars 8 and 11 discloses using soft iron or a MU alloy. Therefore, could be iron-nickle alloy).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Racz in view of Franke in order to concentrate magnetic fields using the material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 14-18, and 31-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a device, comprising: wherein: the magnetic concentrator is a first magnetic concentrator; the device comprises a second magnetic concentrator; and the Hall effect sensor overlaps at least partially with a space between the first magnetic concentrator and the second magnetic concentrator in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 11 and 12 are also objected as they depend on claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a device, comprising: wherein: the magnetic concentrator is a first magnetic concentrator; the device comprises a second magnetic concentrator; and the semiconductor die comprises: a third Hall effect sensor that overlaps at least partially with a third edge of the second magnetic concentrator; and a fourth Hall effect sensor that overlaps at least partially with a fourth edge of the second magnetic concentrator opposite the third edge in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 15-18 are also objected as they depend on claim 14.
Regarding claim 31, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a current sensor comprising: wherein: the magnetic concentrator is a first magnetic concentrator; the current sensor comprises a second magnetic concentrator; and the Hall effect sensor overlaps at least partially with a space between the first magnetic concentrator and the second magnetic concentrator in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 32 and 33 are also objected as they depend on claim 31.
Conclusion
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