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 .
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) 15-23, 29, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbul et al. (10,069,334) and Hebiguchi (2013/0127456).
Regarding independent claims 15, 29, and 34, Barbul teaches a non-transitory computer-readable memory containing computer-readable instructions that when executed by at least one processor to perform operations for cancelling a magnetic field in a passenger region of a motorized vehicle, the method, and the motorized vehicle comprising:
a vehicle chassis (Fig. 2);
a passenger region of the motorized vehicle (Fig. 2);
at least one current carrying loop (CCL) (111 and 102) configured to carry electricity during vehicle operation, thereby generating a magnetic field configured to radiate toward the passenger region (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 43-62);
a sensor associated with the at least one CCL for sensing an electromagnetic interference field caused by the at least one CCL (Col. 2, lines 14-22, 27-29);
at least one electrical wire loop (201) spatially aligned with a physical path of the at least one CCL; and
at least one circuit (202) configured to:
receive sensing data from the sensor (Col. 2, lines 27-29), and
based on the sensing data, determine a cancellation electrical current for providing to the electrical wire loop in order to cause a cancelling magnetic field (321), thereby at least reducing magnetic radiation from the at least one CCL (322) to the passenger region (Col. 6, lines 24-47).
Barbul fails to explicitly teach the sensor being a current sensor detecting the current passing through the at least one CCL. Hebiguchi teaches a similar sensing system for detecting properties of an electromagnetic field and determining a cancelling magnetic field (Figs. 1 and 2) to that of Barbul. Hebiguchi teaches a current sensor associated with at least one CCL (11) for sensing current passing through the at least one CCL ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a current sensor as part of the data collected in Barbul’s invention to determine the cancellation electrical current necessary to reduce magnetic radiation from the at least one CCL, since Hebiguchi teaches a similar system that accomplishes the same goal and it would allow for an additional piece of information that can be used to determine the cancellation electrical current necessary to reduce magnetic radiation.
Regarding claim 16, Barbul teaches the magnetic field being an electromagnetic field (Col. 1, lines 58-64).
Regarding claim 17, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL includes at least two CCLs (111, 102).
Regarding claim 18, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL (102; Fig. 1) includes a portion of the vehicle chassis, and wherein the electrical wire loop (201; Fig. 2) is aligned with a current transmission path through the vehicle chassis. (The electrical wire loop can be aligned at various locations throughout the vehicle chassis.)
Regarding claim 19, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL (102; Fig. 1) including a portion of a body of the motorized vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL (102; receiving coil) including an electrical component of the motorized vehicle.
Regarding claim 21, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL includes a cable (connected to rectifier and vehicle battery).
Regarding claim 22, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL is configured to carry current in a first direction, and wherein the electrical wire loop is configured to carry current in a second direction, opposite the first direction (Col. 6, lines 38-47).
Regarding claim 23, Hebiguchi teaches the current sensor including at least one of a current clamp ([0005]), a field probe, or a Rogowski coil.
Regarding claim 35, Barbul and Hebiguchi teach the at least one (control) circuit (202 of Barbul) configured to receive the current sensing data and use the current sensing data to provide the cancellation electrical current to the electrical wire loop, as described above. They fail to explicitly teach the at least one circuit including an amplifier. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that including an amplifier into a (control) circuit is known in the relevant art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an amplifier into the at least one circuit in Barbul’s invention, since it involves a mere simple substitution of a control circuit including an amplifier instead of one without, and the invention would perform equally well with receiving current sensing data and determining/providing a cancellation electrical current when the at least one control circuit includes an amplifier to assist in the determining and providing steps.
Claim(s) 25-27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbul et al. (10,069,334) and Hebiguchi (2013/0127456) as applied to claim 15 and 29 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (2005/0023460). Barbul and Hebiguchi teach the motorized vehicle and method as described above.
Regarding these claims, Barbul and Hebiguchi fail to explicitly teach the current sensor including a difference current sensor. Brown teaches a similar scenario regarding detecting currents in various wires to determine the magnetic fields they create. Brown teaches a current sensor (402) including a difference current sensor for providing difference sensing data indicative of a difference between current transmitted in two different wires (404, 406), and Brown also teaches the idea of when the difference in current is at a minimum (i.e. equal; similar in magnitude and opposite in phase) the opposing fields cancel each other out ([0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a difference current sensor into Barbul’s invention and adjust the cancellation current to minimize a difference by implementing a similar magnitude and opposite in phase current to the current passing through the at least one CCL, since it is known in the art (as taught by Brown) that by doing this it would reduce the magnetic radiation to zero, which is the desired solution in Barbul’s invention to begin with.
Claim(s) 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbul et al. (10,069,334) and Hebiguchi (2013/0127456) as applied to claim 15 and 29 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (2019/0386517). Barbul and Hebiguchi teach the motorized vehicle and method as described above.
Regarding these claims, Barbul and Hebiguchi fail to explicitly teach a frequency filter for filtering the current data. Liu teaches a similar current sensor to that of Barbul and Hebiguchi. Liu teaches a current sensor (202) comprising a frequency filter (306) configured for filtering the current data and providing a filtered data indicative of a plurality of frequency components of the current passing through a wire, which generates an average current signal ([0042], [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Liu’s current sensor and frequency filter into the Barbul/Hebiguchi combination, to provide an average current signal of the current passing through the CCL, which would assist Barbul in sensing the current passing through the CCL, which would help in determining the cancellation electrical current needed to reduce magnetic radiation in Barbul’s invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argued limitations in independent claim 15, the Examiner believes that the Applicant is not giving these limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, regarding “during vehicle operation”, the Examiner believes that charging the vehicle is included in a “vehicle operation”, and that is when Barbul teaches the CCL configured to carry electricity.
Second, regarding the phrase “at least one electrical wire loop spatially aligned with a physical path of the at least one CCL”, the Examiner believes that this could mean the electrical wire loop can be adjacent to the at least one CCL. The Examiner believes the physical path could simply mean where the CCL is located and “spatially aligned” simply means near it and “parallel to” or “adjacent” or anything of that nature. Barbul teaches the at least one electrical wire loop (201) can be located at any of a variety of locations in and around the vehicle. The Examiner believes an obvious (if not inherent) example of that could be next to and aligned in parallel with the at least one CCL (102). Arguably, Barbul even shows this claim limitation in their Fig. 2.
Lastly, regarding claims 18 and 19, the Examiner believes that Barbul teaches these limitations. Barbul (at Col. 1, lines 38-39) teaches the at least one CCL including a portion of the vehicle chassis and/or a portion of a body of the motorized vehicle. Also, and similar to what was discussed above, Barbul (at Col. 3, lines 28-43) teaches the electrical wire loop (201, which can be located at a plurality of locations in and around the vehicle body/chassis) being aligned with a current transmission path through the vehicle chassis, wherein “aligned with” can simply mean “next to” and/or “parallel to”.
These argued claim limitations have a broad range of interpretations. The Examiner suggests, if the Applicant wishes, to add more detailed and explicit claim language to more explicitly describe what the (spatial) relationship between the CCL and the electrical wire loop is.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
7/13/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights