DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polley et al. (US 2017/0363693 – hereinafter “Polley”).
Per claim 1, Polley teaches a current sensor device for measuring a current, the current sensor device comprising:
a first magnetic sensing element (Fig. 5; sensor 510; ¶44) configured to receive a first biasing current alternating in at least two directions, the first magnetic sensing element generating a first signal (The sensor 510 includes Hall elements that are biased using a spinning current technique. Bias currents may be switched in each of four directions (¶44 and 63));
a second magnetic sensing element (Fig. 5; sensor 520; ¶44) configured to receive a second biasing current in a single, fixed direction, the second magnetic sensing element generating a second signal (The sensor 520 includes a Hall element that is not biased using a spinning current technique (¶47-48));
a first amplifier (Fig. 5; amplifier 530; ¶46) configured to amplify the first signal to yield a first amplified signal, the first amplifier comprising a first gain and a first bandwidth (The amplifier 530 has a first gain and a first bandwidth (¶44 and 46));
a second amplifier (Fig. 5; amplifier 540; ¶49) configured to amplify the second signal to yield a second amplified signal, the second amplifier comprising a second gain and a second bandwidth (The amplifier 540 has a second gain and a second bandwidth (¶49));
a processing circuit (Fig. 1; CPU 112; ¶38) configured to alternate the first biasing current between the at least two directions (The CPU 112 is configured to control a switch of a Hall sensor circuit so that the spinning current technique may be performed (¶38)); and
an output terminal (Fig. 5; output terminal of differential amplifier 570; ¶43) for outputting an output amplified signal based on one or both of the first amplified signal and the second amplified signal (An output signal is output from a differential amplifier 570 based on amplified signals from the sensors 510 and 520 (¶54)).
Per claim 2, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first magnetic sensing element comprises at least four terminals, the processing circuit configured to determine which two of the at least four terminals receive the first biasing current and which two of the at least four terminals are used for readout; wherein the second magnetic sensing element comprises two biasing current terminals and two voltage readout terminals, the two biasing current terminals of the second magnetic sensing element receiving the second biasing current in said single, fixed direction (The sensor 510 may include Hall elements in the shape of a cross. Bias currents may be switched in each of the four directions using two terminals. A measurement voltage is read on the other two terminals. The sensor 520 may include a Hall element in the shape of a cross that is not biased using a spinning current technique. Two of the terminals of the cross are used for the bias current and the other two terminals are used for the voltage measurement (¶38, 44, and 63)).
Per claim 3, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuit further comprises a switch (¶38) configured to interchange which of the at least four terminals receive the first biasing current and which of the at least four terminals are used for readout.
Per claim 4, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit further comprises a switch (¶38) configured to alternate the at least two directions of the first biasing current.
Per claim 5, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to alternate a direction of a voltage readout of the first magnetic sensing element (In the spinning current technique, the direction of the voltage measurement is alternated (¶38)).
Per claim 6, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 5, wherein the direction of the voltage readout of the first magnetic sensing element is perpendicular to the direction of the first biasing current (In the spinning current technique, the direction of the voltage measurement is perpendicular to the direction of the current biasing (¶38 and 63)).
Per claim 7, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first magnetic sensing element is configured to receive the first biasing current alternating in at least four directions (In the spinning current technique, the direction of the biasing current is switched in each of four directions (¶63)).
Per claim 9, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the second bandwidth is larger than the first bandwidth (The bandwidth of the Hall sensor output signal of the sensor 520 is greater than the bandwidth of the Hall output signal of the sensor 510 because the spinning current technique, which is applied to sensor 510, reduces the bandwidth of the Hall sensor output signal (¶47-48)).
Per claim 12, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first magnetic sensing element and the second magnetic sensing element are both Hall sensors (The sensor 510 and 520 are Hall sensors (¶44 and 47)).
Per claim 18, Polley teaches the current sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the two biasing current terminals and the two voltage readout terminals of the second magnetic sensing element are fixed (The sensor 520 may include a Hall element in the shape of a cross that is not biased using a spinning current technique. Two of the terminals of the cross are used for the bias current and the other two terminals are used for the voltage measurement (¶38, 48, and 63)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polley in view of Fukai et al. (US 2015/0377647 – hereinafter “Fukai”).
Per claim 8, Polley does not teach the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the second magnetic sensing element further comprises a fixed voltage source.
In contrast, Fukai teaches a magnetic sensor 100 comprising a Hall element 3 having two drive electrodes 3a and 3c and two output electrodes 3b and 3d. A constant current circuit 2 coupled to the drive electrode 3a is driven by a voltage source 1 (Fig. 1; ¶22-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Polley such that the second magnetic sensing element further comprises a fixed voltage source. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of driving drive electrodes of a Hall element (Fukai; ¶22-23).
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polley in view of Cesaretti et al. (US 2015/0301149 – hereinafter “Cesaretti”).
Per claim 10, Polley does not teach the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first gain is tuneable.
In contrast, Cesaretti teaches a magnetic field sensor 100 comprising Hall elements 106, 108 that are operated according to current spinning. A gain of an amplifier 116 connected to the Hall elements 106, 108 can be adjusted to achieve a calibrated sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor 100 (Fig. 1; ¶43-44 and 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Polley such that the first gain is tuneable. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of adjusting a sensitivity of a magnetic field sensor (Cesaretti; ¶59).
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polley in view of Scheller et al. (US 2010/0264909 – hereinafter “Scheller”).
Per claim 11, Polley does not teach the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the second gain has a fixed, predetermined value.
In contrast, Scheller teaches a magnetic field sensing element 18, which may be a Hall effect element comprising output terminals, connected to an amplifier 20 wherein the amplifier 20 may be a fixed gain amplifier (¶39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Polley such that the second gain has a fixed, predetermined value. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of generating a suitable magnetic field signal (Scheller; ¶39).
10. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polley in view of Ausserlechner et al. (US 2010/0156394 – hereinafter “Ausserlechner”).
Per claim 13, Polley does not teach the current sensor device according to claim 12, wherein the Hall sensors and the processing circuit are integrated as a packaged Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (CMOS) circuit.
In contrast, Ausserlechner teaches a magnetic field current sensor fabricated according to a standard CMOS process combined with advanced packaging technology (¶70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Polley such that the Hall sensors and the processing circuit are integrated as a packaged Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (CMOS) circuit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing an integrated sensing system (Ausserlechner; Abstract).
11. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polley in view of McNally et al. (US 11,402,409 – hereinafter “McNally”).
Per claim 14, Polley does not teach the current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to detect an event based on one or both of the first amplified signal and the second amplified signal.
In contrast, McNally teaches a differential current sensor package comprising a current calculation circuit 460 that is configured to receive amplified signals from magnetic sensing elements 432 and 434. The current calculation circuit 460 may include a comparator and is configured to output a fault signal 490 and a current level 480 (Fig. 4; col. 6, lines 41-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Polley such that the processing circuit is further configured to detect an event based on one or both of the first amplified signal and the second amplified signal. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of detecting a fault event (McNally; col. 6, lines 41-59).
Per claim 15, Polley in view of McNally teaches the current sensor device according to claim 14, wherein the processing circuit further comprises a comparator (McNally; col. 6, lines 41-59).
Per claim 16, Polley in view of McNally teaches the current sensor device according to claim 14, wherein the event is a fault (McNally; col. 6, lines 41-59).
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polley in view of McNally, in further view of Nakamura et al. (US 2017/0184688 – hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Per claim 17, Polley in view of McNally does not teach the current sensor device according to claim 16, wherein the fault is an overcurrent event.
In contrast, Nakamura teaches a current sensor apparatus comprising a magnetic sensing element operated according to current spinning wherein a detecting section is configured to detect an overcurrent based on an output signal (Fig. 2; ¶44 and 129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Polley in view of McNally such that the fault is an overcurrent event. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of detecting a severe abnormality (Nakamura; ¶129).
13. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polley in view of Rubinsztain et al. (US 2022/0317161 – hereinafter “Rubinsztain”).
Per claim 19, Polley current sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit comprises at least a first processing circuit and a second processing circuit.
In contrast, Rubinsztain teaches a sensor comprising two channels 120A and 120B each comprising a signal processing circuit 126 configured to receive an amplified signal from a Hall element (Fig. 1; ¶18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Polley such that the processing circuit comprises at least a first processing circuit and a second processing circuit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of separately processing amplified signals from magnetic sensors and generating respective output signals (Rubinsztain; ¶18-19).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights