Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/844,183

MAGNETIC FIELD CANCELLATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Examiner
PARRIES, DRU M
Art Unit
2836
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Safefields Technologies Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
389 granted / 616 resolved
-4.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
651
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
64.6%
+24.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§112
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 616 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Objections Claims 25 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: they both lack antecedent basis (“the cable”). The Examiner believes that this should read “the at least one CCL”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The Examiner is unsure what is meant by “the current clamp has a phase shift below a predetermined threshold”. The current clamp is a sensor that detects the current flowing through a conductor. How does a current sensor have a phase shift and what does it have to do with being below a predetermined threshold. The Applicant’s specification only mentions this phrase once and it lacks any details around what or how the current clamp functions with a phase shift below a predetermined threshold. Clarification around this limitation is requested. 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) 15-24, 29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbul et al. (10,069,334) and Hebiguchi (2013/0127456). Regarding independent claims 15, 29, and 34, Barbul teaches a non-transitory computer-readable memory containing computer-readable instructions that when executed by at least one processor to perform operations for cancelling a magnetic field in a passenger region of a motorized vehicle, the method, and the motorized vehicle comprising: a vehicle chassis (Fig. 2); a passenger region of the motorized vehicle (Fig. 2); at least one current carrying loop (CCL) (111 and 102) configured to carry electricity during vehicle operation, thereby generating a magnetic field configured to radiate toward the passenger region (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 43-62); a sensor associated with the at least one CCL for sensing an electromagnetic interference field caused by the at least one CCL (Col. 2, lines 14-22, 27-29); at least one electrical wire loop (201) spatially aligned with a physical path of the at least one CCL; and at least one circuit (202) configured to: receive sensing data from the sensor (Col. 2, lines 27-29), and based on the sensing data, determine a cancellation electrical current for providing to the electrical wire loop in order to cause a cancelling magnetic field (321), thereby at least reducing magnetic radiation from the at least one CCL (322) to the passenger region (Col. 6, lines 24-47). Barbul fails to explicitly teach the sensor being a current sensor detecting the current passing through the at least one CCL. Hebiguchi teaches a similar sensing system for detecting properties of an electromagnetic field and determining a cancelling magnetic field (Figs. 1 and 2) to that of Barbul. Hebiguchi teaches a current sensor associated with at least one CCL (11) for sensing current passing through the at least one CCL ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a current sensor as part of the data collected in Barbul’s invention to determine the cancellation electrical current necessary to reduce magnetic radiation from the at least one CCL, since Hebiguchi teaches a similar system that accomplishes the same goal and it would allow for an additional piece of information that can be used to determine the cancellation electrical current necessary to reduce magnetic radiation. Regarding claim 16, Barbul teaches the magnetic field being an electromagnetic field (Col. 1, lines 58-64). Regarding claim 17, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL includes at least two CCLs (111, 102). Regarding claim 18, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL (102; Fig. 1) includes a portion of the vehicle chassis, and wherein the electrical wire loop (201; Fig. 2) is aligned with a current transmission path through the vehicle chassis. (The electrical wire loop can be aligned at various locations throughout the vehicle chassis.) Regarding claim 19, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL (102; Fig. 1) including a portion of a body of the motorized vehicle. Regarding claim 20, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL (102; receiving coil) including an electrical component of the motorized vehicle. Regarding claim 21, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL includes a cable (connected to rectifier and vehicle battery). Regarding claim 22, Barbul teaches the at least one CCL is configured to carry current in a first direction, and wherein the electrical wire loop is configured to carry current in a second direction, opposite the first direction (Col. 6, lines 38-47). Regarding claim 23, Hebiguchi teaches the current sensor including at least one of a current clamp ([0005]), a field probe, or a Rogowski coil. Regarding claim 24, Hebiguchi teaches the current clamp having a phase shift below a predetermined threshold (wherein the threshold could be infinite, therefore the phase shift is definitely below the threshold). Claim(s) 25-27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbul et al. (10,069,334) and Hebiguchi (2013/0127456) as applied to claim 15 and 29 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (2005/0023460). Barbul and Hebiguchi teach the motorized vehicle and method as described above. Regarding these claims, Barbul and Hebiguchi fail to explicitly teach the current sensor including a difference current sensor. Brown teaches a similar scenario regarding detecting currents in various wires to determine the magnetic fields they create. Brown teaches a current sensor (402) including a difference current sensor for providing difference sensing data indicative of a difference between current transmitted in two different wires (404, 406), and Brown also teaches the idea of when the difference in current is at a minimum (i.e. equal; similar in magnitude and opposite in phase) the opposing fields cancel each other out ([0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a difference current sensor into Barbul’s invention and adjust the cancellation current to minimize a difference by implementing a similar magnitude and opposite in phase current to the current passing through the at least one CCL, since it is known in the art (as taught by Brown) that by doing this it would reduce the magnetic radiation to zero, which is the desired solution in Barbul’s invention to begin with. Claim(s) 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbul et al. (10,069,334) and Hebiguchi (2013/0127456) as applied to claim 15 and 29 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (2019/0386517). Barbul and Hebiguchi teach the motorized vehicle and method as described above. Regarding these claims, Barbul and Hebiguchi fail to explicitly teach a frequency filter for filtering the current data. Liu teaches a similar current sensor to that of Barbul and Hebiguchi. Liu teaches a current sensor (202) comprising a frequency filter (306) configured for filtering the current data and providing a filtered data indicative of a plurality of frequency components of the current passing through a wire, which generates an average current signal ([0042], [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Liu’s current sensor and frequency filter into the Barbul/Hebiguchi combination, to provide an average current signal of the current passing through the CCL, which would assist Barbul in sensing the current passing through the CCL, which would help in determining the cancellation electrical current needed to reduce magnetic radiation in Barbul’s invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). DMP 3/9/2026 /DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583335
APPARATUS COMPRISING AN INVERTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587030
POWER SUPPLY SWITCHING SYSTEM AND SWITCH APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12558984
Resilient Charging Station
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12549005
FLICKER PREVENTION DEVICE AND FLICKER PREVENTION CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539957
EMERGENCY BACKUP POWER SOURCE AND CONTROL CIRCUIT FOR ELECTRICALLY OPERATED AIRCRAFT WINDOW SHADES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
63%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+13.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 616 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