Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/743,267

MAGNETIC SENSOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Examiner
ASTACIO-OQUENDO, GIOVANNI
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
TDK Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
632 granted / 714 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
731
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 714 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 1 – 14 are pending. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito (JP 2005277034; hereinafter Naito). Naito is cited by the Applicant. Regarding Claim 1, embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito discloses a magnetic sensor device (Fig. 2, item 1) comprising: PNG media_image1.png 210 312 media_image1.png Greyscale a plurality of magnetic detection element arrays (Fig. 2, items 5) formed in a first layer (Fig. 2, item 17); and a wiring layer (Fig. 2, item 9) that is formed in a second layer (Fig. 2, item 21) different from the first layer (Fig. 2, item 17) and electrically connected to the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays (Fig. 2 and para [0027]; pad electrodes are electrically connected to electrode portions 7 and magnetic elements 5), wherein the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays (Fig. 2, items 5) include a first magnetic detection element array (Fig. 2, any of items 5). But the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito does not specifically teach in a plane-normal direction from the second layer to the first layer, the wiring layer overlaps the first magnetic detection element array to encompass an entirety of the first magnetic detection element array, and the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays do not overlap an outline of the wiring layer. However, the embodiment of Fig. 8 of Naito suggests in a plane-normal direction from the second layer to the first layer (para[0043]; thickness direction), the wiring layer (Fig. 8, item 7 with item 31a and 31b) overlaps the first magnetic detection element array (Fig. 8, any of items 45) to encompass an entirety of the first magnetic detection element array (Fig. 8, any of items 45), and the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays (Fig. 8, items 45) do not overlap an outline of the wiring layer (Fig. 8, item 7 with item 31a and 31b). PNG media_image2.png 218 228 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito in view of the embodiment of Fig. 8 of Naito because Fig. 8 shows that the configurations are not only limited to the case where the sensor element is not affected by the current magnetic field of the electrode portion 7 and the wiring portion 9 (Naito para [0043]). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of Deak et al. (US 2015/0294521 A1; hereinafter Deak). Regarding Claim 2, the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito disclose the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1, the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito further discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays (Fig. 2, items 5) further include a second magnetic detection element array (Fig. 2, any of items 5), and in the plane-normal direction (para[0043]; thickness direction), the wiring layer (Fig. 8, item 7 with item 31a and 31b) overlaps the second magnetic detection element array (Fig. 8, any of items 45) to encompass an entirety of the second magnetic detection element array (Fig. 8, any of items 45). But the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito do not specifically teach the first magnetic detection element array and the second magnetic detection element array are connected in series to each other, with an output port being interposed therebetween to form part of a bridge circuit. However, Deak suggests the first magnetic detection element array and the second magnetic detection element array are connected in series to each other (para [0021]; preferably, said magnetic sensor elements are connected in series, parallel, or a combination of series and parallel), with an output port being interposed therebetween to form part of a bridge circuit (para [0058]; a full-bridge magnetoresistive sensor chip for a preferred implementation of a magnetic currency verification head). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the combination of the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito and Fig. 8 of Naito in view of Deak for the bridge circuit in order to be insensitive to common mode magnetic field or external magnetic interference (Deak, para [0030]) and for the series configuration because it is one of the possible configurations obvious to try (Deak, para [0023]). Claim(s) 5 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of Ritmanich et al. (US 2022/0109697 A1, hereinafter Ritmanich). Regarding Claim 5, the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito disclose the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. But the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito do not specifically teach an angle sensor comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. However, Ritmanich suggests an angle sensor comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 (para [0034]; may include sensors or sensor systems like angle sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the combination of the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito and Fig. 8 of Naito in view of Ritmanich in order to provide sensors and other devices for the proper operation, maintenance, monitoring, and the like of the respective systems (Ritmanich, para [0046]). Regarding Claim 6, the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito disclose the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. But the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito do not specifically teach a magnetic compass comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. However, Ritmanich suggests a magnetic compass comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 (para [0039]; examples of sensors include magnetic compasses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the combination of the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito and Fig. 8 of Naito in view of Ritmanich in order to provide sensors and other devices for the proper operation, maintenance, monitoring, and the like of the respective systems (Ritmanich, para [0046]). Regarding Claim 7, the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito disclose the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. But the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito do not specifically teach a current sensor comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. However, Ritmanich suggests a current sensor comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 (para [0037]; examples of electromagnetic sensors include current sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the combination of the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito and Fig. 8 of Naito in view of Ritmanich in order to provide sensors and other devices for the proper operation, maintenance, monitoring, and the like of the respective systems (Ritmanich, para [0046]). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of Shahparnia et al. (US 11,700,441 B1; hereinafter Shahparnia). Regarding Claim 8, the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito disclose the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. But the embodiments of Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 of Naito do not specifically teach a camera module comprising an autofocus mechanism and/or an optical image stabilization mechanism including the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1. However, Shahparnia suggests a camera module comprising an autofocus mechanism and/or an optical image stabilization mechanism including the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 (column 9, line 12 to line 64; an actuator of a camera system, may include an optics assembly that may be held in an optics holder that also carries position sensor magnets (or probe magnets), e.g., to implement autofocus movements of the optics assembly; a magnet holder may hold position control magnets and position sensors, which may be any magnetic sensor or other applicable sensor; the position control magnets may create magnetic fields, which the interior coils (including autofocus coil and/or optical image stabilization coil)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the combination of the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Naito and Fig. 8 of Naito in view of Shahparnia in order to provide sense and react to external excitation/disturbance by adjusting location of the optical lens and/or the image sensor for small form factor cameras that include autofocus mechanisms which may also incorporate optical image stabilization (OIS) mechanisms (Shahparnia, column 1, lines 40 – 46). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “further comprising a dummy pattern that is formed in the second layer and not electrically connected to the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays, wherein the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays further include a second magnetic detection element array, and in the plane-normal direction, the dummy pattern overlaps the second magnetic detection element array to encompass an entirety of the second magnetic detection element array, and the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays do not overlap an outline of the dummy pattern” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 3. Regarding Claim 4, the claim would be allowable as it further limit claim 3. Claims 9 – 14 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “a dummy pattern that is formed in the second layer and not electrically connected to the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays, wherein the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays include a second magnetic detection element array, and in a plane-normal direction from the second layer to the first layer, the dummy pattern overlaps the second magnetic detection element array to encompass an entirety of the second magnetic detection element array, and the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays do not overlap an outline of the wiring layer and an outline of the dummy pattern” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 9. Regarding Claims 10 – 14, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 9. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Saito et al. (US 11,619,659 B2) teaches a magnetic sensor device comprising: a first detection circuit that includes a magnetic detection element configured to detect an applied magnetic field (see claim 1). Aratono et al. (US 2013/0249531 A1) suggests the magnetic sensor units each including a first magnetic sensor element and a second magnetic sensor element (see claim 1). Cai et al. (US 2020/0386578 A1) discloses magnetic position detection devices are used for detecting a lens position in a camera module having an optical image stabilization mechanism and an autofocus mechanism incorporated in a smartphone (see para [0002]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm. 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. /GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 3/20/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601781
BUILT-IN SELT-TEST CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR DEADTIME TRIMMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596158
DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE FOR POWER SUPPLY DEVICE FOR ELECTRIC DISCHARGE MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591005
TESTING ELEMENTS FOR BONDED STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584725
Continuous Rotation Angle Detection Sensor 360 DEG SMD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578371
Remote Calculation of Earth Connection Impedance
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 714 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month