B 2025 - our provisional answer
Hats off to all of you who bravely faced paper B! Nico and I had a go too.
Like last year, it was a long paper. Again 30 pages (same as 2024), and this time 11 claims, 7 figures and 3 prior art documents, the third one covering multiple embodiments. It took me personally a bit longer than usual to get to grips with the technology, as there were many details and it took me a while to see what's important and what not (or at least less important).
Please note that at this point in time, we can only give you our considerations as to why we made the decisions as we made them. Like you, we were under time pressure, and sometimes just needed to go for a certain solution. And like you, we will have to wait for the Examiner's Report to see what the intended answers were and in how much deduction a certain different solution would result. If any, as in recent year we have seen that multiple different solutions were considered to be OK. So don't panic or get depressed if your solution is different from ours.
As to the main amendment to the claims set, both Nico and I decided to go for claim 1+ 6 and claim 7+11.
In addition, in the second independent claim (claim 6 of the amended claims set, corresponding to claim 7 as filed), we also deleted the Hall-effect tranducer and replaced it by the magnetic field detector. This in order to solve a clarity objection as raised by the examiner.
In claim 9 (corresponding to claim 10 as filed), we replaced the "substantially differs in strength" by "differs by at least 20% in strength" - also in order to solve a clarity issue.