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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on 1/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching either invention would require searching in the same fields and using the same (or substantially similar) search queries, and any prior art applicable to the claims of one group would likely be applicable to the claims of the other.
This is not found persuasive because independent claim 15, while also sensing magnetic field strength of a magnet through a plurality of locations as well as the plurality of locations comprises at least one null location, also adds the steps of receiving indications that comprise an inconsistency with a configuration of the object and outputting an indication of a potential malfunction associated with the second sensor. Nowhere in the other claim group is there any mention of these steps or subject matter, thereby requiring the Examiner to search for this subject matter. It may be true that some of the prior art would overlap with the subject matter of claims 15-18; however, this further subject matter would require further search over and above that which is needed for claims 1-14, 19, and 20.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Nos. 123, 606, 800. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 4, Line 7: There is no period at the end of the sentence.
Paragraph 22, Line 8: The correct article before “security system” is –a--.
Paragraph 23, Line 18: The security server is numbered –122—in the drawings.
Paragraph 90, Line 10: There is an extra comma before “the first detectable region”.
Paragraph 91, Line 6: The word “door” has been repeated. Should this read –drawer--?
Paragraph 95, Line 10: The word “door” has been repeated. Should this read –drawer--?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt [U.S. 11,573,072].
For claim 19, the apparatus taught by Schmitt teaches the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed first sensor is met by the first sensor (No. 1), 2) the claimed second sensor is met by the second sensor (No. 2) offset from the first sensor (i.e., see Fig. 2B), and 3) the claimed magnet is met by the magnet (No. 10) configured to move relative to the first and second sensor (i.e., see travel direction in Figure 1; direction d in Figures 3A and 4A) and configure such that at least one of the first or second sensor can detect a magnetic field of the magnet (Col. 9, Lns. 39-41: the first and second sensors 1, 2, to sense the magnetic field generated by the magnet 10).
The Schmitt reference does not explicitly state the magnetic field is detected regardless of null regions in the magnetic field. However, the Schmitt reference does measure magnetic fields as the magnet moves in relation to the two sensors and can also detect the position of the magnet based on its location relative to the sensors. More importantly, as seen in Figures 3B and 4B, the magnetic fields are measured in both the x and z directions relative to the sensors and can be seen to vary in relation to the magnet’s position. Also, Figure 3B reveals that the magnetic fields in the z direction are zero at one point in the magnet’s position (see lines 3a and 3b). These are not called “null” regions per se; however, it does show that a magnetic field is detected by at least one sensor even though the magnetic field may be zero at one point.
One important advantage of the Schmitt reference is that it can detect the magnetic field of the magnet even in the presence of a stray magnetic field (i.e., in Figure 4B). Also, prior art references have used a single magnetic sensor (Col. 1, Lns. 21-25) in order to sense a magnetic field. As seen in the Schmitt reference, having two sensors spaced apart from each other will detect the magnet not only in the presence of a stray magnetic field, but also detect the presence of the magnetic field even when one senses zero (or null) magnetic fields. Therefore, the detection of a null field is considered inherent in the system of Schmitt and is considered an obvious property to be achieved in said reference.
For claim 20, Figure 3B of Schmitt clearly shows at least one magnetic sensor detecting a magnetic field in both the x directions and z directions at different locations of the magnet, even when one of the magnetic fields has reached zero.
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to more specifically claim two separate plurality of indications that correspond to four separate null regions between the first and second null regions in which the magnetic field is not detectable by the first sensor and the third and fourth null regions in which the magnetic field is not detectable by the second sensor in conjunction with both sensors detecting the magnetic field such that both sensors detect the magnetic field is located in any of the plurality of detectable regions and any of the null regions. This is considered unobvious subject matter. The magnetic field sensor taught by van Veldhoven [U.S. 9,062,989] also teaches two separate sensors; however, it does not teach the subject matter found in amended claim 1.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Potter [U.S. 4,916,821] detects the boundary of null regions of a magnetic field.
Tyner et al [U.S. 9,316,022] has a lock position sensor using magnetic detection.
Lee et al [US 2016/0210616] generates a magnetic field detected by a sensor.
Modi et al [U.S. 9,576,469] adjusts the sensor of a security system.
Modi et al [U.S. 9,952,029] provides for guided installation feedback of a sensor.
Lee [U.S. 10,371,549] provides an improved magnetic sensor system.
Mednikov et al [U.S. 10,502,591] determines a position or change in position using a magnetic field sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
2/9/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689