Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/397,660

MAGNETIC DETECTION DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
NASIR, TAQI R
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
optohub Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
426 granted / 489 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
538
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.2%
+7.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 489 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to prior USC 112 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC USC 112 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) USC 102 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall (U.S. Publication 20220334192) in view of Abou (U.S. Publication 20070205748). Regarding claim 1, Kendall discloses a magnetic detection device (fig. 16 (16-1) “current/magnetic sensors such as the magnetometers or Hall sensors previously described may be placed between each cell to measure the current flow in the busbar link between neighboring cells” [0064, [0101]]) comprising: a plurality of magnetic sensor units (fig. 16 (16-2)) each including an excitation coil (fig. 16 (16-3,4) [0022, 0101]) and a signal coil (fig. 16 (16-5,6) [0022, 0101]) formed as conductor patterns on a board (fig. 15 (15-3, 4 on 15-2)) and a magnetic core layer arranged on the board (fig. 15 (15-7 on 15-2)); a driving circuit (fig. 16 (16-7)) configured to output an AC current to the excitation coil (16-7 to drive coil via 16-3, 4); and a detection circuit (fig. 16 16-8) configured to acquire a detection signal from the signal coil (fig. 16 via 16-7 sense), wherein the signal coils of the plurality of magnetic sensor units are connected to each other (fig. 16 (coils from each 16-2 are connected at 16-5 of sense unit 16-7)). Kendal does not expressly teach series connection of the signal coils. However, Abou in a relevant art teaching magnetic sensing device in which detection coils (signal coils) are connected in series (“the signal output section may comprise a series connection of the pair of detection coils” [0043]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kendall’s magnetic detection device such that the signal coils of the plurality of magnetic sensor units are connected in series, as taught by Abou to effectively combine detection outputs and improve sensitivity and noise performance of the acquired detection signal [Abou [0020]]. PNG media_image1.png 563 612 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 640 560 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Kendall as modified further discloses wherein the excitation coils of the plurality of magnetic sensor units are connected to each other and are configured to flow an AC current output from the driving circuit, the driving circuit being common to the excitation coils (fig. 16 coils from 16-2 connected to 16-3, 4 to 16-7 drive unit). Regarding claim 5, Kendall as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic sensor units is arranged side by side along a main surface of the board (fig. 1 (16-2)). Regarding claim 6, Kendall as modified further discloses wherein the excitation coil and the signal coil of each of the plurality of magnetic sensor units are formed as conductor patterns on the board, the board being common to the excitation coil and the signal coil (fig. 15 board 15-2 with 15-3, 4 around). Regarding claim 8, Kendall as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic sensor units includes a first magnetic sensor unit and a second magnetic sensor unit, and wherein the first magnetic sensor unit and the second magnetic sensor unit are connected such that the excitation coils are connected in series (fig. 16 (16-2 excitation coils connected in series with drive 16-7)) in a forward direction equal in polarity and the signal coils are connected in series in a reverse direction different in polarity (fig. 16 (16-2) connected to 16-7). Regarding claim 9, Kendall as modified further discloses wherein the excitation coils of the plurality of magnetic sensor units have a common winding number, and wherein the signal coils of the plurality of magnetic sensor units have a common winding number (fig. 15 (15-3,4 have common windings numbers)). Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall (U.S. Publication 20220334192) Abou (U.S. Publication 20070205748) as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above and further in view of Takatsuji (U.S. Publication 20110241665). Kendall as modified by Abou discloses the claimed invention above: Regarding claim 3, Kendall as modified by Abou further teaches arranged as a layer formed on the board along a main surface of the board (fig. 15 shows the coil wrapped around in an annular form on 15-7 which is on the board 15-2), and wherein the excitation coil and the signal coil are each arranged on the board so as to wind around the magnetic core layer by connecting the conductor pattern formed on one side in a direction intersecting the main surface of the board and the conductor pattern formed on the other side so as to sandwich the magnetic core layer (fig. 15 (15-1)). Kendall as modified by Abou does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic core layer has an annular shape. However, Takatsuji in a relevant art of multi-axis fluxgate magnetic sensor teaches wherein the magnetic core layer has an annular shape (“a toroidal winding is provided to a ring-shaped magnetic core” [0013]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core of Kendall as modified by Abou with Takatsuji ring shape core to gain the advantage of reducing electromagnetic interferences improving sensor accuracy [Takatsuji [0023]]. Kendall as modified by Abou discloses the claimed invention above: Regarding claim 4, Kendall as modified by Abou does not explicitly teach wherein the excitation coil and the signal coil are arranged so as to alternately wind around the magnetic core layer along a circumferential direction of the magnetic core layer of an annular shape, wherein the signal coil is arranged while changing a winding direction every half circumference of the magnetic core layer, and wherein the plurality of magnetic sensor units is arranged with their detection directions aligned with a mutually common direction, the detection direction being a direction along a line passing positions where a winding direction of the signal coil is changed in the magnetic core layer. However, Takatsuji in a relevant art of multi-axis fluxgate magnetic sensor teaches wherein the excitation coil and the signal coil are arranged so as to alternately wind around the magnetic core layer along a circumferential direction of the magnetic core layer of an annular shape (fig. 5 (windings of coils 3 and 4) around ring-shaped magnetic core), wherein the signal coil is arranged while changing a winding direction every half circumference of the magnetic core layer (fig. 5 (windings of coils 3 and 4)), and wherein the plurality of magnetic sensor units is arranged with their detection directions aligned with a mutually common direction, the detection direction being a direction along a line passing positions where a winding direction of the signal coil is changed in the magnetic core layer (“A solenoidal winding is further provided to the outer side of the ring-shaped magnetic core as a first detection coil 3 in such a manner that the axis is orthogonal to the second detection coil 4. The ring-shaped magnetic core, the excitation coil 2-1, the first detection coil 3 and the second detection coil 4 are included in a first/second sensor unit 110” [0013]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core of Kendall as modified by Abou with Takatsuji ring shape core to gain the advantage of reducing electromagnetic interferences improving sensor accuracy [Takatsuji [0023]]. PNG media_image3.png 613 524 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall (U.S. Publication 20220334192) Abou (U.S. Publication 20070205748) as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above and further in view of Laville (U.S. Publication 20210111335). Kendall as modified by Abou discloses the claimed invention above: Regarding claim 7, Kendall as modified by Abou does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of magnetic sensor units is arranged so that the boards each including the excitation coil, the signal coil, and the magnetic core layer are stacked along a direction intersecting the main surface of the board. Laville in a relevant art stacked die assembly teaches wherein the plurality of magnetic sensor units is arranged so that the boards each including the excitation coil, the signal coil, and the magnetic core layer are stacked along a direction intersecting the main surface of the board (fig. 2 shows individual sensors 204 a,b stacked with individual substrates 202a, b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor arrangement of Kendall as modified by Abou with Laville to gain the advantage of improving the match of the results provided by the first and second semiconductor die taken from different wafers, this may reduce the risk of a common cause failure mode related to wafer processing [Laville [0152]]. PNG media_image4.png 392 574 media_image4.png Greyscale Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall (U.S. Publication 20220334192) Abou (U.S. Publication 20070205748) as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above and further in view of Fischer (U.S. Publication 20120206134). Kendall as modified by Abou discloses the claimed invention above: Regarding claim 10, Kendall as modified by Abou does not explicitly teach a magnetic convergence section arranged on a detection direction side of the magnetic core layer in each of the plurality of magnetic sensor units, the magnetic convergence section being configured to converge a magnetic flux with respect to the magnetic core layer. However, Fischer in a relevant art teaching a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device for sensing a magnetic field teaches a magnetic convergence section arranged on a detection direction side of the magnetic core layer in each of the plurality of magnetic sensor units, the magnetic convergence section being configured to converge a magnetic flux with respect to the magnetic core layer (fig. 2B (sections 42 and 44 on both sides of 35 to align the magnetic field [0045])). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concentrators of Fischer in Kendall as modified by Abou to gain the advantage of an improved MEMS cantilever flux concentrator, which provides a greater dynamic range of motion to allow for larger modulation and more space for a magnetic sensor. [Fischer [0038]]. PNG media_image5.png 456 639 media_image5.png Greyscale 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 TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F. 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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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. /TAQI R NASIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584977
Magnetic Field Detector
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578404
HYBRID CT-MRI SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571751
ATOMIC OXYGEN SENSOR TELEMETRY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566223
MAGNETIC DETECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560567
MEMS GAS SENSOR AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 489 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month