DETAILED ACTION
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 5/19/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regoli et al. ("Radiation Tolerance of Low-Cost Magnetometer for Space Applications"; 2020; 34th Annual Small Satellite Conference; herein Regoli) in view of Deak (US 2018/0017418 A1, Pub Jan 18, 2018).
Regarding Claim 1, Regoli teaches:
A magnetometer system (PNI RM3100 magnetometer; p.2) comprising:
a magneto-inductive sensor (The PNI RM3100 magnetometer works based on the magneto-inductive principle [p.2].) configured to provide satellite attitude determination, magnetic noise identification, and magnetic field information (Magnetic field sensors are used in satellites to resolve the attitude of satellites [p.1]. Magnetic field sensors pick up any magnetic fields including those that are considered to be noise [p.2]. Magnetic field sensors measure magnetic fields and thus provide magnetic field information [p.2].);
an aluminum chassis supporting and protecting the magneto-inductive sensor (Aluminum mechanical shielding protects electronics from radiation [p.2]. An aluminum shielding vault with a certain thickness protects the electronics from radiation [p.4]. Since the shielding vault contains and supports the electronics including the sensor, the shielding vault serves as a "chassis.").
Regoli does not teach:
electronics operably coupled to the magneto-inductive sensor configured to protect against electrostatic discharge and measure temperature of the sensor for thermal calibration;
However, Deak teaches:
The Examiner is combining Regoli in view of Deak by using the electrostatic discharge circuit and temperature sensor of Deak with the magnetometer of Regoli.
electronics operably coupled to the magneto-inductive sensor configured to protect against electrostatic discharge (Magnetic sensor chips 130-133 are coupled to ASIC 135 that has an electrostatic discharge protection circuit [0088].; see Fig 17) and measure temperature of the sensor for thermal calibration (The magnetic sensor 1 has a temperature sensor whose signal is used for calibration with respect to temperature [0088,0090].; see Fig 17);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Regoli in view of Deak by having electronics operably coupled to the magneto-inductive sensor configured to protect against electrostatic discharge and measure temperature of the sensor for thermal calibration because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results of preventing component damage and compensating for thermal drift to maintain absolute accuracy.
Regarding Claim 4, Regoli teaches:
the aluminum chassis is configured to protect the magneto-inductive sensor from radiation (Aluminum protects from radiation [p.2-4].).
Regarding Claim 5, Regoli teaches:
the aluminum chassis is configured to protect the magneto-inductive sensor from micrometeorites (Since the aluminum vault surrounds and contains the sensor, it protects and prevents the sensor from being directly hit by micrometeorites.).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regoli in view of Deak and further in view of Polycase (Pub Jul 17, 2019, <https://www.polycase.com/al-70p>, retrieved from Internet Archive Wayback Machine <https://web.archive.org/web/20190717211732/https://www.polycase.com/al-70p> on May 18, 2026).
Regarding Claim 2, Regoli and Deak do not teach the limitations.
However, Polycase teaches:
The Examiner is combining Regoli and Deak in view of Polycase by providing the sensor of Regoli within the aluminum case of Polycase.
the aluminum chassis comprises a first half and second half connectable along an interface, the magneto-inductive sensor being contained within the aluminum chassis (The AL-70P is constructed from aluminum and has two halves connected by screws and provides EMI/RFI attenuation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Regoli and Deak in view of Polycase by having the aluminum chassis comprises a first half and second half connectable along an interface, the magneto-inductive sensor being contained within the aluminum chassis because the case blocks electromagnetic interference and RF interference as taught by Polycase.
Regarding Claim 3, Regoli and Deak do not teach the limitations.
However, Polycase teaches:
The Examiner is combining Regoli and Deak in view of Polycase by providing the sensor of Regoli within the aluminum case of Polycase.
a plurality of fasteners coupling the first half to the second half (The AL-70P is constructed from aluminum and has two halves connected by screws and provides EMI/RFI attenuation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Regoli and Deak in view of X by having a plurality of fasteners coupling the first half to the second half because the case blocks electromagnetic interference and RF interference as taught by Polycase.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-4pm, 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 06/04/2026
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights