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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibahara (US 2009/0121704)
Re Claims 1 and 17; Shibahara discloses
Commercial three-phase alternating current measuring apparatuses and three-phase motor driving inverter apparatuses" (0091), which are components commonly found in electrically powered vehicles or related systems.
an electrical conductor arranged to carry motive electric current for powering movement of the three-phase motor ..."(The "bus bars 4a, 4b" are described as carrying "currents in three phases from an inverter or the like" and current of "400 A" (0050, 0042), consistent with motive electric current in an inverter-driven system.)
the electrical conductor having opposing faces (Figures 1B, 5A, 5B show the "bus bar 4a" as a "flat conductor" with clear opposing major surfaces (faces) against which the carrier is placed (0032, 0049).)
and a current sensor arranged to measure the motive electric current in the electrical conductor, the current sensor comprising (The "current measuring apparatus" includes the Hall elements and signal processing integrated circuit designed to measure current in the bus bar (0007, 0031).)
a carrier bended from a fist, open configuration in which first and second planar regions of the carrier are coplanar, to a second, deployed configuration in which the carrier wraps around the conductor so as to be in confrontation with both of the opposing faces the first and second planer regions coupled by a bend region of the carrier (The "printed circuit board 1" serves as the carrier. In embodiments like Fig. 1B, the board wraps around the bus bar, with the Hall elements 2a, 2b fixed "across the bus bar 4a" (0032). Figures like 5A, 7, 11, 12, 13 also depict this arrangement, where the carrier's structure implicitly extends around the conductor to confront opposing faces.)
first and second hall sensor packages mounted on the carrier in the respective first and second planar regions at the opposing faces of the conductor (Hall elements 2a and 2b" are mounted on the "printed circuit board 1" and "fixed across the bus bar 4a," clearly positioning them on either side, effectively at the opposing faces, as seen in Fig. 1B, 5A, 5B, etc. (0031, 0032).)
each hall sensor package being arranged to output a signal representative of a magnetic field at the package (When the magnetic sensing surface of the Hall element 2a detects a magnetic field, the Hall element 2a outputs a voltage of a value corresponding to the magnetic flux density of the magnetic field" (0037).)
a differential amplifier mounted on the carrier (The "signal processing integrated circuit 3" is "mounted on a printed circuit board 1" (0031). This circuit includes "amplifiers 31 and 32" and an "adder-subtractor 33" (0036). The adder-subtractor 33 acts as a differential amplifier to process the signals (0040).)
the differential amplifier being arranged to receive the signals from the first and second hall sensor packages and to combine the signals to provide at least one amplifier output representing the motive electrical current. (The "adder-subtractor 33 derives an output voltage Vout that is the difference between an output voltage value from the Hall element 2a and an output voltage value from the Hall element 2b," and this output is used to calculate the current value (0037, 0040).)
While an electrically powered entire vehicle isn't explicitly shown and the carrier being flexible, the application is clearly within this domain and it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have applied this invention to a vehicle in order to measure the current flowing within the vehicle and make the appropriate correction when necessary.
Re Claim 2; Shibahara discloses
the carrier comprises a printed circuit board (flexible PCB)":
Shibahara consistently refers to "printed circuit board 1" (0031). While the term "flexible" isn't used, the description of its placement and interaction with the bus bar (e.g., being inserted into a recessed/slot portion for fixation (0031, 0083, 0084)) and the configuration in figures like 1B, 5A, 11, 12 suggests a form that allows for shaping around the conductor, which is often achieved with flexible PCBs.
and the first and second hall sensor packages and the differential amplifier are mounted on, and in electrical communication with each other via, the flexible PCB." ("Hall elements 2a, 2b and a signal processing integrated circuit 3 mounted thereon" on the "printed circuit board 1," with a "wire electrically connecting the Hall elements 2a, 2b to the signal processing integrated circuit 3" (0031).)
Re Claim 3 Shibahara disclosure has been discussed above.
Shibahara does not disclose wherein the carrier further comprises at least first and second stiffener elements, each stiffener element being disposed between a respective one of the faces of the conductor and an adjacent portion of the flexible PCB.
However, stiffeners are known to create a rigid foundation that absorbs mechanical stress and protects the delicate solder points and it would have been obvious to have added a stiffener to the conductors in order to create a rigid foundation that absorbs mechanical stress.
Re Claim 4 Shibahara discloses
wherein each hall sensor package is arranged to detect the magnetic field parallel to the adjacent face of the conductor which is caused by the motive current flowing in the conductor. ("Magnetic sensing surfaces of the Hall elements 2a, 2b are arranged substantially perpendicularly to the direction of the magnetic field generated by the current flowing through the bus bar 4a" (0001). This implies sensing the component of the magnetic field that is normal to the bus bar's major face, not parallel to it. However, Embodiments 6-8 (Figs. 10-12) describe inclining the Hall elements for specific purposes related to adjacent bus bar fields or skin effects, stating the "magnetic sensing surface of each Hall element lies parallel to a direction of a magnetic field generated by the adjacent bus bar" to be insensitive, or "coincides more with the magnetic sensing direction of the Hall elements 2a and 2b" for the measurement target (0058, 0062).)
Re Claim 6 Shibahara discloses
wherein the carrier further comprises a connection region (Fig. 1, the opposite end of the PCB near to the indication of 4a) extending from one of the first and second planar regions, the "signal processing integrated circuit 3" provides "an output voltage Vout" (0037), and but does not disclose an electrical connector mounted on a distal end of the connection region, the connection region carrying the at least one amplifier output to the electrical connector for output from the sensor.
However, based on the direction of flow of current shown, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have an electrical connector mounted on a distal end of the connection region, the connection region carrying the at least one amplifier output to the electrical connector for output from the sensor in order to provide the output to the load.
Re Claim 7 Shibahara discloses
wherein the electrical conductor one or more of: has a cross-sectional area at the current sensor of from 50 mm.sup.2 to about 1000 mm.sup.2; and has a cross-section aspect ratio of the lengths of the opposing faces and the spacing between the opposing faces of between 2 and 20.
(“bus bars 4a to 4c has a width of 13 mm and a thickness of 1.8 mm" (0049, Fig. 3). This yields a cross-sectional area of 13mm * 1.8mm = 23.4 mm², which falls outside the claimed range of 50 mm² to 1000 mm² .cross section aspect ratio...between 2 and 20."The aspect ratio for the specified bus bar is 13mm / 1.8mm ≈ 7.22, which falls within the claimed range of 2 to 20.)
Re Claim 8 Shibahara discloses
wherein there is no aperture through the electrical conductor between the portions of the carrier extending around the conductor, or through the electrical conductor between the first and second hall sensor packages.
(The descriptions of the "bus bar" and its insertion into the "recessed portion 10" or "slot portions 11a to 11c" of the printed circuit board do not show or mention any apertures through the bus bar itself (0031, 0032, 0052, 0083, 0084). The bus bar is consistently depicted as a solid conductor.)
Re Claim 9; Shibahara discloses
wherein the sensor does not comprise any magnetic flux concentrator component adjacent to the electrical conductor.
(Shibahara discloses explicitly contrasts the invention with prior art that uses "a magnetic core" (0002). The present invention emphasizes using Hall elements and their strategic placement without a core to achieve size reduction and accurate measurement (0002, 0006). While "magnetic substance" is mentioned for shielding adjacent conductors, this is distinct from flux concentration for measurement of the target conductor (0053, 0054).
Re Claim 10 Shibahara discloses
wherein the vehicle is arranged to control the motive electrical current responsive to the at least one amplifier output.
(Shibahara discloses measuring current in "inverter...or the like" applications (0002, 0050). Measuring current is typically done to enable control. The "INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY" notes its use in "three-phase motor driving inverter apparatuses in order to measure a current while inhibiting the adverse effect of the current in a different phase" (0091), which strongly implies subsequent control based on these measurements.)
Re Claim 11 Shibahara discloses
A current sensor for measuring electric current in an electrical conductor having opposing faces, the current sensor comprising: a flexible carrier having first and second planar regions, the flexible carrier being arranged to extend around the conductor so that the first and second planar regions are in confrontation with the respective opposing faces; first and second hall sensor packages mounted on the carrier in the respective first and second planar regions, each hall sensor package being arranged to output a signal representative of a magnetic field at that hall sensor package; and a differential amplifier mounted on the carrier, the differential amplifier being arranged to receive the signals from the first and second hall sensor packages and to combine the signals to provide at least one amplifier output representing the electric current.
( This claim largely repeats the core elements of the sensor from Claim 1 and its limitations are mapped identically to the corresponding parts of Claim 1, with the addition of "flexible carrier" and "planar regions" which were discussed in Claim 2 and 5 mappings respectively (0031, 0032, 0036, 0040, 0083, 0084).)
Re Claim 13; Shibahara discloses
wherein the flexible carrier further comprises a connection region connecting either the first or the second planar region to an electrical connector arranged to output the at least one amplifier output representing the electrical current.
(As mapped in Claim 6, the Shibahara describes the output Vout but lacks specific details on a "connection region" or an "electrical connector" for external output (0037).)
Re Claim 14 Shibahara discloses
wherein the flexible carrier comprises a flexible printed circuit board, PCB, and wherein the first and second hall sensor packages, the differential amplifier, and the electrical connector are in electrical communication via tracks of the flexible PCB.
(Combines mappings from Claim 2 (flexible PCB, components mounted/communicating) and Claim 13 (electrical connector), consistent with "printed circuit board 1" having components mounted and electrically connected (0031).)
Re Claim 15; Shibahara discloses
further comprising stiffener elements coupled to the flexible PCB in each of the first and second planar regions.
(As mapped in Claim 3, see the rejection)
Re Claim 16 Shibahara discloses
An electric vehicle comprising: an electrical conductor arranged to carry electric current within a powertrain of the electric vehicle; and the current sensor of claim 11 arranged to measure the electric current in the electrical conductor.
(Similar to Claim 1, this links the sensor to an electric vehicle's powertrain and current measurement, aligning with "three-phase motor driving inverter apparatuses" (0091).)
Re Claim 18; Shibahara discloses
wherein the flexible carrier comprises a flexible PCB on which the hall sensor packages and the differential amplifier are mounted. (See the rejection of claim 2)
Re Claim 19; Shibahara discloses
wherein the electrical conductor is arranged to carry motive electric current within the powertrain of an electric vehicle. (See the rejection of claim 1)
Re Claim 20 Shibahara discloses
wherein one or more of: there is no aperture through the electrical conductor adjacent to the first and second hall sensor packages; and there is no magnetic flux concentrator component adjacent to the first and second hall sensor packages. (See the rejection of claim 8)
Re Claim 21; Shibahara discloses a sensor region of each hall sensor package.
Shibahara does not disclose is located between 40% and 60% across a width of the conductor.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing invention was made to located between 40% and 60% across a width of the conductor, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re Claim 22; Shibahara discloses wherein the at least one amplifier output representing the motive electrical current comprise two amplifier outputs (33 and 32), the two amplifier outputs being differential outputs. (Fig. 2)
Re Claim 23; Shibahara discloses wherein the flexible carrier having first and second planar regions coupled by the bend region forms a U-shaped cross-section around the conductor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Applicant argues that Shibahara does not disclose or suggest the amended limitations of claim 17 because Shibahara teaches a pre‑formed recessed portion or slot in a rigid circuit board, into which the bus bar is inserted. Applicant states that this is “fundamentally different” from the claimed method, which requires a flexible carrier provided in an open, flat form that is then bent to wrap around the conductor. Applicant further contends that inserting a conductor into a pre‑formed slot is not the same as bending a flat, flexible carrier around the conductor, and therefore Shibahara cannot anticipate claim 17.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant’s argument focuses on the assembly method rather than the resulting structure, while claim 17 is drafted in structural and functional terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). The claim does not require that the carrier be bent in a particular manner, nor does it exclude configurations where the conductor is received into a recessed or partially surrounding structure.
Shibahara discloses a printed‑circuit‑board portion having a recessed region that surrounds and confronts multiple faces of the bus bar once assembled. Functionally, this configuration meets the claimed “wrap around” relationship because the carrier structure is positioned on opposing sides of the conductor in the final state. Under BRI, a structure that receives the conductor into a recessed portion inherently “wraps around” the conductor, even if the assembly motion involves insertion rather than bending.
Furthermore, the claim’s reference to a “flexible carrier” does not exclude Shibahara. Printed‑circuit substrates are well known to be implemented in both rigid and flexible forms, and nothing in Shibahara limits the board to a rigid FR‑4‑type material. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the recessed‑portion configuration can be implemented using a flexible or semi‑flexible substrate, and the claim does not recite any specific modulus, material, or degree of flexibility that would distinguish over Shibahara.
Finally, the applicant’s argument relies on advantages such as easier installation and adaptability to conductor size, but these advantages are not recited in the claim and therefore are not commensurate with the claim scope. The claim covers any flexible carrier that results in the same structural relationship shown in Shibahara, regardless of the method of achieving that configuration.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that Shibahara anticipates the structural limitations of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).
Applicant argues that Shibahara fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 17 because Shibahara teaches a pre‑formed recessed portion or slot in a rigid circuit board into which the bus bar is inserted. Applicant asserts that this is “fundamentally different” from the claimed method, which requires a flexible carrier provided in an open, flat form that is then bent to wrap around the conductor. Applicant further contends that inserting a conductor into a pre‑formed slot is not the same as bending a flat, flexible carrier around the conductor, and therefore Shibahara cannot anticipate claim 17.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 17 is drafted in structural and functional terms, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim does not exclude a configuration in which the conductor is received into a recessed or partially surrounding structure. Shibahara discloses a printed‑circuit‑board portion having a recessed region that confronts multiple faces of the bus bar in the assembled state. Functionally, this satisfies the claimed “wrap around” relationship because the carrier structure is positioned on opposing sides of the conductor.
The applicant’s distinction between “inserting into a slot” and “bending around” focuses on the assembly motion, which is not limiting. The claim does not require that the carrier be bent in a particular manner, nor does it exclude assembly by insertion. The final structural relationship in Shibahara is consistent with the claimed configuration.
Additionally, the claim’s recitation of a “flexible carrier” does not distinguish over Shibahara. Printed‑circuit substrates are well known to be implemented in both rigid and flexible forms, and Shibahara does not limit the substrate to a rigid material. The claim does not recite any specific modulus, material, or degree of flexibility that would exclude Shibahara’s structure.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 17.
§103 Claims 1–16 and 18–20
Applicant argues that amended independent claims 1 and 11 require a flexible carrier having first and second planar regions that are coplanar in an open, flat configuration, and are then bent to wrap around the conductor. Applicant asserts that Shibahara discloses a rigid circuit board with a pre‑formed slot, not a flexible carrier that transitions from a flat configuration to a wrapped configuration. Applicant further argues that Shibahara contains no teaching or suggestion of a carrier that starts flat and is then bent around the conductor.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the structural relationship recited in claims 1 and 11 is present in Shibahara under BRI. Shibahara’s recessed‑portion board inherently includes:
• a first planar region confronting one face of the conductor,
• a second planar region confronting the opposite face, and
• a connecting region forming the recessed portion.
This corresponds to the claimed first planar region, second planar region, and bend region. The claims describe the carrier as “configured to be bent,” but do not require that the carrier actually be supplied or used in a flat state, nor do they exclude forming the carrier in a pre‑bent or slotted configuration that inherently has the same geometry.
Regarding flexibility, substituting a flexible printed‑circuit substrate for a rigid one is a routine design choice in the field. Flexible carriers are widely used to simplify installation, accommodate tolerances, and wrap around conductors. Implementing Shibahara’s recessed‑portion concept using a flexible substrate that is initially flat and then bent around the conductor would have been an obvious modification yielding predictable results.
Applicant’s arguments about “significant advantages” such as accommodating various conductor sizes or affecting sensor spacing are not commensurate with the claim scope, because the claims do not recite any such performance characteristics. No evidence of unexpected results has been provided.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the §103 rejection of claims 1–16 and 18–20.
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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (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 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 Applicant would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836