DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received [date response was filed], is as follows:
- Claims 1 and 3 are pending.
- Claims 1 and 3 have been amended.
- Claims 2 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 3 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of current sensors” in line 3. Claim 1 further recites “a first current sensor” and “a second current sensor”. It’s not clear from the claim if the claim was meant to recite a plurality of current sensors and a first and second current sensors, or if the claim was meant to describe that the plurality of current sensors comprise a first and second current sensor. After reviewing the Specification, the examiner believes that the applicant intended the claim to describe the latter. For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the claim as reciting: wherein the plurality of current sensor comprises a first current sensor…… a second current sensor.
Correction is required.
Claim 3 is also rejected as it inherits the deficiencies in claim 1 noted above.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2020/0064380 A1 by Li et al., (Li hereafter) in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2017/0040185 A1 by FUWA, (FUWA hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches in Figures 7-10, a current detector comprising:
a bus bar (300a+300b) through which a current to be measured flows (I in Fig. 7); and
a plurality of current sensors (magnetic sensor and circuit 34+36+38 and current-sensing resistor and measurement circuit 304+306+40 in Figs. 8 and 10) operable to detect the current by different detection methods (magnetic means and resistive means) being provided on a path of the bus bar through which the current flows from one end surface side to another end surface side of the bus bar (as illustrated in Fig. 7); wherein the plurality of current sensor comprises:
a first current sensor (304+306+40) including a pair of measurement terminals (306) and a resistive element (304) disposed between the pair of measurement terminals and the first current sensor being operable to receive a current flowing through the bus bar and being operable to detect a magnitude of the current from a voltage across the resistive element (potential across the current sensing resistor 304);
a second current sensor (34+36+38) including a magnetic sensor (16) disposed apart from the first current sensor (the sensors are positioned in different planes);
the magnetic sensor including a magnetic detection sensor disposed on a substrate (circuit board 14); and the magnetic sensor operable to detect a magnetic-field component generated by the current flowing through the bus bar (see for example, paragraph 0048).
Li substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning that the magnetic detection sensor is disposed on a substrate, and the substrate being disposed on a resin disposed between the substrate and the bus bar.
It is well known in the art however, to encapsulate the active sensing element in a magnetic chip with resin. For example, FUWA teaches in Figure 2, a magnetic detection sensor (31) disposed on a substrate (1), and the substrate disposed on a resin (4) disposed between the substrate and a unit the magnetic sensor is to be coupled to (through connectors 242). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the application was effectively filed, to use teachings of magnetic sensors on substrates disposed on resin, as taught by FUWA, and use a magnetic sensor that is supported by a substrate disposed on resin, in order to ensure the sensitive elements in the sensor are protected from the environment.
The examiner notes that the proposed combination would locate FUWA’s sensor on the surface of portion 34 of Li’s device upside down, so as to allow the contacts (242) to bias the support board 34. Thus, yielding a device where the substrate is disposed on a resin disposed between the substrate and the bus bar.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the magnetic sensor is provided at a linearly-formed position of the path of the bus bar (as illustrated in Figure 9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 May 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights