Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/763,307

SENSOR DEVICE, HOLSTER SENSING SYSTEM, AND VIDEO-RECORDING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, TUNG X
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Getac Technology Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 715 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§112
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 715 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 2019/0063864 A1 hereinafter Stewart) in view of Lee (US 7,292,026 B2 hereinafter Lee). As to claim 1, Stewart discloses in Figs. 1 and 6, a sensor device (see telematics sensor 102 in Fig. 1, which is the overall sensor device attached to holster 104; abstract describes the sensor device for detecting holstering), comprising: a control unit (see companion circuitry 606 in Fig. 6, which includes processing and calibration components for controlling sensing operations); and a sensing module electrically connected with the control unit, the sensing module comprising a reference coil set and an induction coil set (see inductive coil 602 in Fig. 6 as part of the sensing module on circuit board 604, configured as a dual-antenna/coil system where one coil/antenna acts as ambient/reference and the other as proximity/induction for inductive coupling or dielectric-shift sensing); wherein the sensor device is disposed on a side of an object, the induction coil set of the sensing module is adjacent to the object, and the reference coil set is distant from the object and provides a reference level (see sensor 102 in Fig. 1 disposed on the side/exterior of holster/object 104 via interposer, with the proximity induction coil positioned adjacent/closer to the holstered firearm barrel/asset, and the ambient reference coil positioned further/distant for baseline measurement); wherein the control unit determines whether a metal item on another side of the object is present based on a physical quantity difference between a sensing value generated by the induction coil set and the reference level provided by the reference coil set (see companion circuitry 606 in Fig. 6, which processes differential signals from the dual coils to detect presence/absence of the metal firearm/item via changes in dielectric/inductance between proximity and ambient/reference coils, with software compensation for environmental effects). Stewart does not explicitly disclose wherein an inductive area of the reference coil set is smaller than an inductive area of the induction coil set. However, Lee teaches an analogous inductive position sensor with a reference coil set and an induction coil set (see reference coil (DD) and receiver/transmitter coil (RE/DE) in Fig. 1B as part of the differential inductive sensing system, also shown in the overall sensor assembly in Fig. 2), wherein an inductive area of the reference coil set is smaller than an inductive area of the induction coil set (see reference coil DD in Fig. 1B configured with a smaller inside diameter (DDi) relative to the transmitter/induction coil's outside diameter (DEo), creating a reduced effective inductive area through self-cancellation structure for noise reduction; the differential structure in Fig. 1B results in induced voltages canceling to near zero, making the sensitive area effectively smaller and independent of position but adjustable with gap for compensation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stewart's reference coil set to have a smaller inductive area than the induction coil set, as taught by Lee, in order to enhance noise cancellation and baseline compensation for environmental variations (e.g., humidity or gap tolerances), as Stewart already employs differential compensation for similar effects like water/humidity disrupting fields, and Lee's structure provides automatic correction for common mode noise, EMI, and mechanical tolerances without altering primary detection sensitivity. This modification is a predictable use of known differential coil designs in inductive sensors to improve accuracy in variable environments, such as law enforcement holsters. As to claim 2, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 1. Stewart further discloses wherein the reference coil set comprises two first coils disposed on two sides of a first substrate (see inductive coil 602 in Fig. 6 on circuit board/substrate 604, configured as ambient/reference with possible multi-layer traces or opposing side placements for differential sensing in the dual-antenna setup), the induction coil set comprises two second coils disposed on two sides of a second substrate (see inductive coil 602 in Fig. 6 similarly on circuit board/substrate 604, configured as proximity/induction with multi-layer or opposing side placements), and the reference coil set and the induction coil set are arranged in a stacked structure (see circuit board 604 in Fig. 6 with integrated/stacked coil and circuitry layers for compact sensor design; the dual coils are part of the stacked or multi-layer PCB structure in the sensor assembly). To the extent not explicit, Lee teaches stacked coil arrangements on substrates (see coils DD, RE, DE in Fig. 1B arranged in axial/stacked configuration on planar structures for differential operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the coils in a stacked structure on substrates as taught by the combination, for the same reasons as claim 1, to achieve compact, noise-resistant sensing in a holster-mounted device (see sensor 102 in Stewart's Fig. 1). As to claim 3, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 2. Stewart further discloses wherein the physical quantity difference is an inductance change between the induction coil set and the reference coil set (see differential changes processed by circuitry 606 in Fig. 6, based on inductance/dielectric shifts between the dual coils in the sensing module), and the control unit determines whether the metal item is present according to an electrical signal formed by the inductance change (see companion circuitry 606 in Fig. 6, where software processes the differential electrical signal from the coils to detect metal presence, with the signal varying higher/lower based on proximity). As to claim 4, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 1. Stewart further discloses further comprising a communication unit that is electrically connected with the control unit (see companion circuitry 606 in Fig. 6, which includes integrated wireless communication components, e.g., Bluetooth, connected to the control), wherein the communication unit is used to transmit a trigger signal generated by the control unit based on the physical quantity difference (see circuitry 606 in Fig. 6 transmitting trigger signals from sensor 102 in Fig. 1, based on differential sensing results, to external devices like cameras for unholstering/holstering events). As to claim 5, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 4. Stewart further discloses further comprising a power unit that is electrically connected with the control unit (see battery/power source integrated with circuitry 606 in Fig. 6, connected to the control for power management), wherein the power unit is controlled by the control unit to supply current signals to the sensing module, such that the induction coil set and the reference coil set are enabled to induce magnetic fields (see power supplied via circuitry 606 in Fig. 6 to coil 602 for pulse induction or VLF operations, generating magnetic fields under control-adjusted frequencies). As to claim 6, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 5. Stewart further discloses wherein the sensing module of the sensor device implements a proximity sensor or a differential inductive switch (see inductive coil 602 and circuitry 606 in Fig. 6 implementing proximity/differential inductive or dielectric-shift sensing/switching for asset detection); wherein the power unit supplies the current signals to the reference coil set and the induction coil set of the sensing module, and the reference coil set and the induction coil set form two different effective sensing ranges for respectively generating a reference inductance and an inductive inductance (see power from circuitry 606 in Fig. 6 enabling the dual coils to produce fields with different ranges: ambient/reference coil for wider baseline inductance, proximity/induction coil for targeted/close-range inductive inductance). As to claim 7, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 6. The combination discloses wherein the inductive area of the reference coil set is smaller than the inductive area of the induction coil set for reducing an inductance change generated when the metal item approaches the reference coil set (as modified by Lee's reference coil DD in Fig. 1B with smaller area to reduce sensitivity and unwanted changes; this aligns with Stewart's ambient/reference coil in Fig. 6 for compensation against distant environmental effects like humidity, reducing interference from approaching metal). As to claim 8, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 1. Stewart further discloses wherein the metal item approaches or moves away from a side of the induction coil set, inductances formed by the induction coil set and the reference coil set are subject to change, and the inductance of the induction coil set is lower or higher than the inductance of the reference coil set, so as to generate the physical quantity difference received by the sensing module and output a sensing result (see metal firearm/item interacting with proximity coil near sensor 102 in Fig. 1 and coil 602 in Fig. 6, causing inductance changes relative to the ambient/reference coil, generating a higher/lower differential for output results like holstering status via circuitry 606). As to claim 9, Stewart in view of Lee discloses the sensor device according to claim 8. Stewart further discloses wherein the control unit performs a clock control through pulse-width modulation, so as to implement a frequency control and enable the sensing module to detect inductance values generated by the induction coil set and the reference coil set (see companion circuitry 606 in Fig. 6 using timing/PWM-like control for pulse induction at adjustable frequencies, enabling clocked sampling and detection of inductance values from the dual coils). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-20 allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 10-20, the prior art in record alone or in combination does not disclose wherein an inductive area of the reference coil set is smaller than an inductive area of the induction coil set, the induction coil set of the sensing module is adjacent to the holster, and the reference coil set is distant from the holster; wherein the control unit determines whether the sensing metal disposed on the gun is present in the holster based on a physical quantity difference between a sensing value generated by the induction coil set and a reference level provided by the reference coil set, as recited in claim 10-15; and wherein the sensing metal approaches or moves away from a side of the induction coil set, an inductance generated by the induction coil set is lower or higher than an inductance generated by the reference coil set, and the sensing module receives the physical quantity difference and outputs a sensing result; wherein when the sensing result shows that the gun is pulled out of the holster, the control unit transmits a trigger signal to the communication module of the recording device, so as to activate the photographing module to start recording, as recited in claims 16-20 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am-6:30pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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. /TUNG X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 2/20/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601766
APPARATUS FOR MEASURE OF QUANTITY AND ASSOCIATED METHOD OF MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578360
JIG AND METHOD FOR GRINDING PROBE PINS OF PROBE CARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566193
WAFER TESTING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560647
CONTACTOR FOR MULTI DEVICE SOCKETS AND RELATED
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554034
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING DIELECTRIC CONSTANT AND RESISTIVITY WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPAGATION MEASUREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
91%
With Interview (+3.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 715 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