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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/05/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 05/05/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-12 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 the limitation “…the magnetic detector has a detection surface that detects the magnetic field and detects the magnetic-field components parallel to the detection surface…” in lines 11-13 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “magnetic field concentrated by the core member” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “magnetic field”. Please provide proper clarification in order to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "… the plate surface of the substrate is orthogonal to the end surfaces of the core member…" in lines 21-22 of Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of a “plate surface” prior to this disclosure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "… the grounded substrate is disposed between the core member and the magnetic detector that are not grounded such that the plane serves as a shield." in lines 26-28 of Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of a “grounded substrate” prior to this disclosure.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…the core member being configured to concentrate the magnetic field generated when the current to be measured passes through the busbar; and the magnetic detector configured to detect the magnetic field concentrated by the core member, wherein the magnetic detector has the detection surface that detects the magnetic field and detects the magnetic-field components parallel to the detection surface…” in lines 4-14 of Claim 12. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “magnetic field concentrated by the core member” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “magnetic field”. Please provide proper clarification in order to avoid confusion.
Claim 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Please make the proper corrections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uchida et al. US 2024/0142325 - In a torque sensor of a torque detection system, in a state where a torque is not generated, a first magnetic detector overlaps with one (e.g., N-pole) of a plurality of magnetic poles of a magnet when the one of the plurality of magnetic poles of the magnet is radially projected onto the first magnetic detector. A second magnetic detector overlaps with another one (e.g., S-pole) of the magnetic poles when the another one of the magnetic poles is radially projected onto the second magnetic detector. A motor control device calculates a sum of a value, which relates to a detected strength of a magnetic field detected by the first magnetic detector, and a value, which relates to a detected strength of the magnetic field detected by the second magnetic detector.
Nagata et al. US 2022/0244321 - Provided is a magnetic field detection device that includes a first and second soft magnetic bodies, and a magnetic detector. The first and second soft magnetic bodies extend along a first plane and are disposed in confronted relation in a third direction. The first plane includes both a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction. The third direction is orthogonal to both the first and second directions.
Sei et al. US 2018/0321283 - A current sensor includes: a magnetic core member including a core main body obtained by forming a slit-shaped gap portion along a tube axis direction in a tube that surrounds a conductive member, which is an object to be energized, on an inner side with a clearance, the magnetic core member being configured to generate a magnetic flux corresponding to a current flowing through the conductive member; a magnetic sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to magnetic flux density in the gap portion; and a magnetic shield member including a shield main body that surrounds the core main body from an outer side of the core main body with a clearance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, 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, 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights