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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-8, Applicant argues Mikrut’s positive line 1160 and negative line 1125 are not connected in parallel between common input-side and output-side connection points. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mikrut discloses in fig. 5 positive line 1160 and negative line 1125 connected in parallel, since they are coplanar, equidistant from each other, do not meet at any point and have the same slope. Also, applicant argues that they are not alternative current paths extending between the same two connection points, in particular, current flowing through load 1120 does not divide between positive line 1160 and negative line 1125 at a common input-side connection point and recombine at a common output-side connection point. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., they are not alternative current paths extending between the same two connection points, in particular, current flowing through load 1120 does not divide between positive line 1160 and negative line 1125 at a common input-side connection point and recombine at a common output-side connection point) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, Applicant argues that the Office Action identifies reference numeral 1220 as an alleged connection point on the input line side. However, paragraph [0051] of Mikrut expressly identifies element 1220 as a metal-oxide varistor ("MOV"), not as a connection point between positive line 1160 and negative line 1125. Similarly, reference numeral 1125 identifies the negative line itself, not a common output-side connection point at which the alleged first and second wiring portions are joined. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mikrut does expressly identify element 1220 as a metal-oxide varistor (“MOV”) and shown in fig. 5 wherein the metal-oxide varistor ("MOV") 1220 serves as a connection point between positive line 1160 and negative line 1125. Furthermore, Mikrut shows fig. 5 wherein 1120 serves as an output-side connection point between positive line 1160 and negative line 1125. Also, applicant argues that the sensor monitors the different outgoing and return legs of the load circuit, rather than respective parallel branches between common connection points. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., respective parallel branches between common connection points) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, applicant argues that Mikrut does not expressly or inherently disclose a control unit that controls the switch portion to perform offset correction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The term offset could mean “a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of a contrary one”. In Mikrut, controller 1170 evaluates the detected current difference against a predetermined limit and generates a fault signal when the limit is reached. In response to that fault signal, two-pole breaker 1200 causes both breaker contacts 1190 and 1195 to open, thereby interrupting current in both positive line 1160 and negative line 1125. In other words, interrupting the current in both positive line 1160 and negative line 1125 “diminishes or balances” the effect of the current difference not desired. Therefore, Mikrut does teach the claimed parallel wiring arrangement and control unit that controls the switch portion to perform offset correction.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikrut (US PGPUB 2010/0046129).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Mikrut teaches an offset correction device for performing offset correction of a sensor unit (1150), the offset correction device comprising: a first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) that is connected to an input line (1160 in 1110) and an output line (1125 in 1120) and is disposed in a measurement region (1155) of the sensor unit (1150) (as shown in fig. 5); a second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) that is connected in parallel to the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) between a connection point (1110) on the input line side and a connection point (1120) on the output line side (as shown in fig. 5), and that is disposed in the measurement region (1155) (as shown in fig. 5); a switch portion (1200) that switches at least the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) to either a conductive state or a non-conductive state (as shown in fig. 5); and a control unit (1180) that controls the switch portion (1200) to perform the offset correction of the sensor unit (as shown in fig. 5 and disclosed in para. 0049), wherein the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) and the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) are configured to conduct current from the connection point (1110) on the input line side to the connection point (1120) on the output line side (a current will flow from connection point 1110 via positive line 1160 to connection point 1120 and return back from connection point 1120 via negative line 1125 to connection point 1110, as disclosed in para. 0049 and shown in fig. 5), and the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) is disposed such that a current in a direction opposite to a current in the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) is measured by the sensor unit (1150) (as shown in fig. 5 and disclosed in para. 0049).
Regarding claim 2, Mikrut teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Mikrut teaches wherein the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) includes a first measurement portion disposed in the measurement region (as shown in fig. 5) and disposed such that a current flows in a first direction (as disclosed in para. 0049), and the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) includes: a second measurement portion disposed in the measurement region (as shown in fig. 5) and disposed such that a current flows in a second direction, which is opposite to the first direction (as disclosed in para. 0049); and two portions (portions to the right and left of portion of 1125 in 1155) respectively connected to both sides of a portion in the second measurement portion corresponding to the measurement region (1155).
Regarding claim 3, Mikrut teaches the limitations of claim 2, in addition, Mikrut teaches wherein one of the two portions (left portion) is connected to a connection point (1220) between the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) and the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) on an input line side (as shown in fig. 5), and the other of the two portions (right portion) is connected to a connection point (1125) between the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) and the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) on an output line side (as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Mikrut teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Mikrut teaches wherein the control unit (1180) controls the switch portion (1200) such that a first measurement state is set (as disclosed in para. 0049), the first measurement state being a state in which the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) is in a non-conductive state (as disclosed in para. 0049), controls the switch portion (1200) such that a second measurement state is set (as disclosed in para. 0049), based on a measurement result of the sensor unit (1150) in the first measurement state (as disclosed in para. 0049), the second measurement state being a state in which the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) is in a conductive state (as disclosed in para. 0049), and performs the offset correction based on the measurement result of the sensor unit (1150) in the second measurement state (as disclosed in para. 0049).
Regarding claim 5, Mikrut teaches the limitations of claim 4, in addition, Mikrut teaches wherein the switch portion (1200) includes a first switch (1190) that switches the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) to either a conductive state or a non-conductive state (as disclosed in para. 0049), and a second switch (1195) that switches the second wiring portion (portion of 1125 in 1155) to either a conductive state or a non-conductive state (as disclosed in para. 0049), and the control unit (1180) controls the switch portion (1200) such that the first wiring portion (portion of 1160 in 1155) is in the conductive state in the first measurement state and the second measurement state (as disclosed in para. 0049).
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikrut (US PGPUB 2010/0046129) in view of HOSHINO (US PGPUB 2023/0246530).
Regarding claim 6, Mikrut teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Mikrut fails to specifically teach wherein an impedance of the second wiring portion is equal to an impedance of the first wiring portion. However, HOSHINO teaches wherein an impedance of the second wiring portion (83) is equal to an impedance of the first wiring portion (82) (as disclosed in para. 0096).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the impedance of the second wiring portion equal to the impedance of the first wiring portion as taught by HOSHINO with the invention of Mikrut in order to have relativity between the wiring portions (HOSHINO para. 0096).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikrut (US PGPUB 2010/0046129) in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0148929).
Regarding claim 7, Mikrut teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Mikrut fails to specifically teach wherein the input line is connected to a power supply of a vehicle, and the output line is connected to a load of the vehicle. However, Wang et al. teaches wherein the input line is connected to a power supply (12) of a vehicle (10), and the output line is connected to a load (24) of the vehicle (10) (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the input line connected to a power supply of a vehicle, and the output line connected to a load of the vehicle as taught by Wang et al. with the invention of Mikrut in order to protect the system from undesired level of currents, which could permanently damage the device/circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vanderkolk (US PGPUB 2004/0001292) teaches a mobile electric power supply system with deactivatable GFCI protection.
Wang et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0148929) teaches a dual use vehicular AC generator.
Lacey et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0153144) teaches an industrial ground fault circuit interrupter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights