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
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 4, 6, 11, and 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg 2019 (US20190391217A1, hereinafter referred to as Weinberg 2019) in view Moriya et al (US20210386346A1, hereinafter referred to as Moriya) further in view of Heidenreich et al (US20150285875A1, hereinafter referred to as Heidenreich)
Regarding Claim 1, Weinberg 2019 discloses an apparatus for collecting information for imaging an object in a region-of-interest, the apparatus comprising (“Disclosed embodiments provide an apparatus and method for creating or modifying a magnetic field in a region of interest comprising a plurality of electropermanent magnets” [0004], “Electropermanent magnets may be used to establish net magnetization in a sample, thereby assisting in the image generation process for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” [0003], “it should be understood that the term field-of-view (or FOV) means a region of space that is of interest to a user (for example a physician wishing to discern disease in a patient, or an inspector of fruit wishing to detect unwanted contaminants).” [0023]):
an array of two or more electropermanent magnets used to null magnetic fields and to collect a magnetic resonance image (“Disclosed embodiments provide an apparatus and method for creating or modifying a magnetic field in a region of interest comprising a plurality of electropermanent magnets configured to perform both the action of establishing a quasi-static magnetic field, and the action of imposing transient magnetic non-uniformity.” [0004], “one or more magnetizable materials 110 whose magnetization can be changed. Such changes may include, for example, changes in magnetization magnitude, changes in magnetization polarization direction, and complete nullification of magnetization in the magnetizable material 110.” [0013], “FIG. 2 illustrates how the foundation element 100, now magnetized so as to be electropermanent magnets 210, may be configured into one or more electropermanent magnet arrays 220 near a field of view 230 that may include an object or material to be imaged.” [0022]), and
one or more limited magnetic sensors configured to be positioned in a vicinity of a region of interest, wherein signals from the one or more limited magnetic sensors are configured to be used to form an image describing magnetic fields generated or modulated by one or more objects in the region-of-interest between pulse sequences intended to collect the magnetic resonance image of the region-of-interest (“The uniformity of the quasi-static magnetic field may be improved through the successive application of currents through the coils surrounding the electropermanent magnets 210, where the uniformity is measured using a magnetometer in the FOV or by measuring the line-width of a free-induction decay or other signal from protons in the FOV.” [0025], “In accordance with this disclosure of inventive and technical utility, it should be understood that the term field-of-view (or FOV) means a region of space that is of interest to a user” [0023], “Electropermanent magnets may be used to establish net magnetization in a sample, thereby assisting in the image generation process for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” [0003]).
Weinberg 2019 does not specifically disclose that the array is configured to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest, a controller configured to control the array to null the magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences, the image of the object formed is a composite image of a magnetic resonance image and another image type.
However, in the same field of endeavor Moriya teaches that the array is configured to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation” [0005])
a controller configured to control the array to null the magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation” [0005], “The control device 5 determines whether or not the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field after the cancellation is equal to or less than the reference value (step S17). The measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field after the cancellation is a value measured by the magnetic sensor for active shield 3 after the fluctuating magnetic field is canceled by the active shield coil 9. The reference value is a noise level at which the brain's magnetic field can be measured, and can be set to, for example, 1 pT. If the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field is not less than or equal to the reference value (“NO” in step S17), the process returns to step S15. If the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field is equal to or less than the reference value (“YES” in step S17), the process proceeds to step S18.” [0055], Fig. 2 describes a feedback loop for measuring the magnetic field which requires continuous adjustment in between pulses).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 as outlined above with the array being configured to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest, a controller configured to control the array to null the magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences as taught by Moriya, because the influence of the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism and the influence of the fluctuating magnetic field are avoided [0015].
Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya does not specifically disclose that the image of the object formed is a composite image of a magnetic resonance image and another image type.
However, Heidenreich teaches an image fusion overlay wherein the image of the object formed is a composite image of a magnetic resonance image and another image type (“Furthermore, if parts of these marking devices are fitted to one or more spatial points on the transport unit or patient table and/or on the measurement object itself and constituted as a proton marker, these spatial points can be localized in the MRI image. Additionally defined spatial points can be provided with MPI markers for spatial point localization in the MPI data. The information from the various spatial points of each modality that is gained in this way can be used for stable and precise co-registration of both image data sets, thus allowing a high level of precision of the fused images.” [0030].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya as outlined above with the image formed being a composite image of a magnetic resonance image and another image type as taught by Heidenreich, because the sensitivity of the MPI method is dependent on the magnetic field strength at which the particles saturate and on the gradient strength of the selection field, with which the magnetic field rises from the field free point thus generating a controlled magnetic field is crucial [Abstract, 0007].
Regarding Claim 4, Weinberg 2019 teaches all limitations noted above except that the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a magnetometer that has limited sensitivity outside of a range of magnetic field magnitudes and/or frequencies.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Moriya teaches the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a magnetometer that has limited sensitivity outside of a range of magnetic field magnitudes and/or frequencies (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation … multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation that measure a magnetic field relevant to geomagnetism at a position of each of the multiple optically pumped magnetometers” [0005])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 as outlined above with the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a magnetometer that has limited sensitivity outside of a range of magnetic field magnitudes and/or frequencies as taught by Moriya, because avoiding the influence of outside magnetic noise stronger than the brain’s magnetic field leads to more accurate magnetic sensor readings [0003].
Regarding Claim 5, Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya, and Heidenreich further teaches the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises an optically pumped magnetometer (OPM), an nitrogen vacancy magnetometer, or an acoustically driven ferromagnetic resonance magnetometer (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation … multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation that measure a magnetic field relevant to geomagnetism at a position of each of the multiple optically pumped magnetometers” Moriya [0005]. The motivation for using Moriya is same as that discussed with respect to claim 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Weinberg 2019 discloses a method of collecting information for imaging an object in a region-of-interest, the method comprising (“Disclosed embodiments provide an apparatus and method for creating or modifying a magnetic field in a region of interest comprising a plurality of electropermanent magnets” [0004], “Electropermanent magnets may be used to establish net magnetization in a sample, thereby assisting in the image generation process for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” [0003], “it should be understood that the term field-of-view (or FOV) means a region of space that is of interest to a user (for example a physician wishing to discern disease in a patient, or an inspector of fruit wishing to detect unwanted contaminants).” [0023]):
positioning an array of two or more electropermanent magnets and one or more limited magnetic sensors in the vicinity of a region of interest to collect a magnetic resonance image of the region of interest (“Disclosed embodiments provide an apparatus and method for creating or modifying a magnetic field in a region of interest comprising a plurality of electropermanent magnets configured to perform both the action of establishing a quasi-static magnetic field, and the action of imposing transient magnetic non-uniformity.” [0004], “FIG. 2 illustrates how the foundation element 100, now magnetized so as to be electropermanent magnets 210, may be configured into one or more electropermanent magnet arrays 220 near a field of view 230 that may include an object or material to be imaged.” [0022], “Electropermanent magnets may be used to establish net magnetization in a sample, thereby assisting in the image generation process for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” [0003], “As indicated by N and S on the electropermanent magnets 210, all the electropermanent magnets have been magnetized in one direction, which creates a net magnetization vector in protons residing in the Field-Of-View (FOV) 240… it should be understood that the term field-of-view (or FOV) means a region of space that is of interest to a user” [0023], ”This net magnetization 240 of object 230 may be useful for magnetic resonance imaging” [0024], “The uniformity of the quasi-static magnetic field may be improved through the successive application of currents through the coils surrounding the electropermanent magnets 210, where the uniformity is measured using a magnetometer in the FOV or by measuring the line-width of a free-induction decay or other signal from protons in the FOV.” [0025]), and
an array of two or more electropermanent magnets used to null magnetic fields and to collect a magnetic resonance image (“Disclosed embodiments provide an apparatus and method for creating or modifying a magnetic field in a region of interest comprising a plurality of electropermanent magnets configured to perform both the action of establishing a quasi-static magnetic field, and the action of imposing transient magnetic non-uniformity.” [0004], “one or more magnetizable materials 110 whose magnetization can be changed. Such changes may include, for example, changes in magnetization magnitude, changes in magnetization polarization direction, and complete nullification of magnetization in the magnetizable material 110.” [0013], “FIG. 2 illustrates how the foundation element 100, now magnetized so as to be electropermanent magnets 210, may be configured into one or more electropermanent magnet arrays 220 near a field of view 230 that may include an object or material to be imaged.” [0022]), and
using signals from the one or more limited magnetic sensors to collect information for generating an image describing the magnetic field generated or modulated by one or more objects in the region-of-interest. (“The uniformity of the quasi-static magnetic field may be improved through the successive application of currents through the coils surrounding the electropermanent magnets 210, where the uniformity is measured using a magnetometer in the FOV or by measuring the line-width of a free-induction decay or other signal from protons in the FOV.” [0025], “In accordance with this disclosure of inventive and technical utility, it should be understood that the term field-of-view (or FOV) means a region of space that is of interest to a user” [0023], “Electropermanent magnets may be used to establish net magnetization in a sample, thereby assisting in the image generation process for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” [0003]).
Weinberg 2019 does not specifically disclose that the array is configured to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest, controlling the array to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences, and generating the image of the object as a composite image of a magnetic resonance image of the object and another image type.
However, in the same field of endeavor Moriya teaches one or more limited magnetic sensors (“the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism and the fluctuating magnetic field at the position of each of the multiple optically pumped magnetometers for measuring the brain's magnetic field are measured” [0006])
the array is configured to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation” [0005])
controlling the array to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation” [0005], “The control device 5 determines whether or not the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field after the cancellation is equal to or less than the reference value (step S17). The measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field after the cancellation is a value measured by the magnetic sensor for active shield 3 after the fluctuating magnetic field is canceled by the active shield coil 9. The reference value is a noise level at which the brain's magnetic field can be measured, and can be set to, for example, 1 pT. If the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field is not less than or equal to the reference value (“NO” in step S17), the process returns to step S15. If the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field is equal to or less than the reference value (“YES” in step S17), the process proceeds to step S18.” [0055], Fig. 2 describes a feedback loop for measuring the magnetic field which requires continuous adjustment in between pulses).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 as outlined above with the array being configured to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest, controlling the array to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences as taught by Moriya, because the influence of the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism and the influence of the fluctuating magnetic field are avoided [0015].
Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya does not specifically disclose that the image of the object formed is a composite image of a magnetic resonance image and another image type.
However, Heidenreich teaches an image fusion overlay wherein generating an image as a composite image of a magnetic resonance image and another image type (“Furthermore, if parts of these marking devices are fitted to one or more spatial points on the transport unit or patient table and/or on the measurement object itself and constituted as a proton marker, these spatial points can be localized in the MRI image. Additionally defined spatial points can be provided with MPI markers for spatial point localization in the MPI data. The information from the various spatial points of each modality that is gained in this way can be used for stable and precise co-registration of both image data sets, thus allowing a high level of precision of the fused images.” [0030].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya as outlined above by generating an image as a composite image of a magnetic resonance image and another image type as taught by Heidenreich, because the sensitivity of the MPI method is dependent on the magnetic field strength at which the particles saturate and on the gradient strength of the selection field, with which the magnetic field rises from the field free point thus generating a controlled magnetic field is crucial [Abstract, 0007].
Regarding Claim 11, Weinberg 2019 does not specifically disclose an image fusion overlay wherein the other image type in the composite image is a magnetic particle image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Heidenreich teaches an image fusion overlay wherein the other image type in the composite image is a magnetic particle image (“Furthermore, if parts of these marking devices are fitted to one or more spatial points on the transport unit or patient table and/or on the measurement object itself and constituted as a proton marker, these spatial points can be localized in the MRI image. Additionally defined spatial points can be provided with MPI (magnetic particle image) markers for spatial point localization in the MPI data. The information from the various spatial points of each modality that is gained in this way can be used for stable and precise co-registration of both image data sets, thus allowing a high level of precision of the fused images.” [0030]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 as outlined above by an image fusion overlay wherein the other image type in the composite image is a magnetic particle image as taught by Heidenreich, because the sensitivity of the MPI method is dependent on the magnetic field strength at which the particles saturate and on the gradient strength of the selection field, with which the magnetic field rises from the field free point thus generating a controlled magnetic field is crucial [Abstract, 0007].
Regarding Claim 13, Weinberg 2019 discloses that the one or more limited magnetic sensors are used to describe magnetic fields emitted or modulated by particles in the region of interest (“The uniformity of the quasi-static magnetic field may be improved through the successive application of currents through the coils surrounding the electropermanent magnets 210, where the uniformity is measured using a magnetometer in the FOV or by measuring the line-width of a free-induction decay or other signal from protons in the FOV.” [0025], “In accordance with this disclosure of inventive and technical utility, it should be understood that the term field-of-view (or FOV) means a region of space that is of interest to a user” [0023]).
Regarding Claim 14, Weinberg 2019 teaches all limitations noted above except that the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a magnetometer that has limited sensitivity outside of a range of magnetic field magnitudes and/or frequencies.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Moriya teaches the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a magnetometer that has limited sensitivity outside of a range of magnetic field magnitudes and/or frequencies (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation … multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation that measure a magnetic field relevant to geomagnetism at a position of each of the multiple optically pumped magnetometers” [0005])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 as outlined above with the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a magnetometer that has limited sensitivity outside of a range of magnetic field magnitudes and/or frequencies as taught by Moriya, because avoiding the influence of outside magnetic noise stronger than the brain’s magnetic field leads to more accurate magnetic sensor readings [0003].
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view Stuerner (DE102021203128A1; US20240168112A1 for citation purposes)
Regarding Claim 5, Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich disclose the above noted combination except the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a nitrogen vacancy magnetometer.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Stuerner teaches A sensor unit for detecting a magnetic field [Abstract].
Stuerner also teaches the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a nitrogen vacancy magnetometer (“Furthermore, the sensor unit comprises at least a first sensor for determining a measurement signal of an object and a second sensor for determining a background magnetic field. The first sensor is designed as a diamond-based Nitrogen Vacancy magnetometer and has a highly sensitive diamond having at least one negatively charged Nitrogen Vacancy center” [0019])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich as outlined above with the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a nitrogen vacancy magnetometer as taught by Stuerner, because it allows for highly sensitive measurements of magnetic fields [0008].
Regarding Claim 15, Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich disclose the above noted combination except the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a nitrogen vacancy magnetometer.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Stuerner teaches A sensor unit for detecting a magnetic field [Abstract].
Stuerner also teaches the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a nitrogen vacancy magnetometer (“Furthermore, the sensor unit comprises at least a first sensor for determining a measurement signal of an object and a second sensor for determining a background magnetic field. The first sensor is designed as a diamond-based Nitrogen Vacancy magnetometer and has a highly sensitive diamond having at least one negatively charged Nitrogen Vacancy center” [0019])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich as outlined above with the one or more limited magnetic sensors comprises a nitrogen vacancy magnetometer as taught by Stuerner, because it allows for highly sensitive measurements of magnetic fields [0008].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Murray et al (WO 2020212750 A1, hereinafter referred to as Murray)
Regarding Claim 9, Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich disclose the above noted combination except for the other image type in the composite image being a magnetoencephalogram.
However, in the similar field of displaying magnetic imaging data, Murray teaches a method for creating composite images between a magnetic resonance image and other image types including magnetoencephalogram (“Some embodiments are directed to combining two or more types of independently collected neuroimaging data (either in the same scan or different scan) to produce a composite image of a subject’s injury. This composite image can be evaluated directly by a physician or can be compared to a reference library of neurological masks to determine the location, magnitude, recoverability and/or likely functional impact of an injury.” [0032], ”imaging data collected using a modality other than MRI may be used and combined with MRI data using the techniques described herein. Non-limiting examples of non-MRI data include … magnetoencephalography (MEG)” [0045]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and method of Weinberg 2019 as outlined above for the other image type in the composite image being a magnetoencephalogram as taught by Murray, because some conventional techniques for evaluating injuries to the brain may be improved by combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data that were recorded using different scanning parameters to determine an impact of an injury in a brain of an individual [Murray 0045].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Weinberg et al (US20170227617, hereinafter referred to as Weinberg 2017).
Regarding Claim 12, Weinberg 2019 in view of Moriya and Heidenreich teach the above noted combination except for the image being used to guide a procedure enabled by the array of two or more electropermanent magnets.
However, in the same field of endeavor Weinberg 2017 teaches that the image is used to guide a procedure enabled by the array of two or more electropermanent magnets (“As explained above, conventional MR systems, have an always-on high magnetic field that is present within the imaging area. This situation creates safety concerns for the clinical environment, and hinders the ability for the same MR system to perform both imaging and magnetic image guidance of magnetizable materials. Disclosed embodiments address these issues and provide a technical utility to manipulate electropermanent magnets for magnetic resonance imaging and image guided therapy.” [0011]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Weinberg 2019 as outlined above that the image is used to guide a procedure enabled by the array of two or more electropermanent magnets as taught by Weinberg 2017, because to improve signal strength, this main magnetic field B0 is designed to be as uniform and as strong as possible within the imaging volume to provide the user with the most accurate imaging for a guided procedure [0003].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1, 4-6,11 and 13-15 the Applicant argues the following;
The rejection is respectfully traversed as the cited references, analyzed individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention. For example, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed device or method having a controller configured to control the array to null the magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences intended to collect the magnetic resonance image as generally recited in the independent claims.
The Office Action asserted that Weinberg does not teach the array of electropermanent magnets (EPMs) configured to null magnetic fields generated by sources outside the region of interest or a controller configured to null the magnetic fields generated outside the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences intended to collect the magnetic resonance image as claimed and cited to Moriya.
I. The Office Action asserted that Moriya para. [0005] teaches "a controller configured to control the array to null the magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences intended to collect the magnetic resonance image." (underlined for emphasis). Cited to para. [0005] merely describes how the nulling is achieved. However, Moriya is silent to collecting the magnetic resonance image ("MRI"), let alone a controller configured to control nulling magnetic fields of the array between pulse sequences intended to collect the magnetic resonance image as claimed. While Weinberg 2019 was cited to for teaching an array of EPMs for MRI, the Office Action has failed to provide a teaching or suggestion as to how or why to combine Moriya with Weinberg such that the resulting singular apparatus is configured as claimed.
II. The Office Action further fails to establish a prime facie case of obviousness in combining Moriya and Weinberg 2019. In particular, even assuming arguendo that Moriya teaches nulling magnetic fields from outside the region of interest, the Office Action alleges it would have been obvious to do so "because avoiding the influence of outside magnetic noise stronger than the brain's magnetic field leads to more accurate magnetic sensor readings. [0003]." However, Moriya para. [0003] explicitly couches this advantage in the context of performance of a measurement by the magnetoencephalography. As Weinberg 2019 was not cited to for teaching magnetoencephalography, there is no teaching or motivation to combine Moriya to lead to more accurate MEG measurements as the teachings of MEG are only cited to within Moriya itself. Moreover, Weinberg 2019 cited to in Office Action page 4, as allegedly teaching a limited magnetic sensor, merely discloses a magnetometer which would not be considered a "limited" sensor based either on Applicant's disclosure that defines limited magnetic sensors, or to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, citation of Moriya, teaching a limited magnetic sensor as being some sort of equivalence, still further fails to provide a motivation to combine.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that Weinberg 2019 discloses signals from the one or more limited magnetic sensors are configured to be used to form an image describing magnetic fields generated or modulated by one or more objects in the region-of-interest between pulse sequences intended to collect the magnetic resonance image of the region-of-interest (“The uniformity of the quasi-static magnetic field may be improved through the successive application of currents through the coils surrounding the electropermanent magnets 210, where the uniformity is measured using a magnetometer in the FOV or by measuring the line-width of a free-induction decay or other signal from protons in the FOV.” [0025], “In accordance with this disclosure of inventive and technical utility, it should be understood that the term field-of-view (or FOV) means a region of space that is of interest to a user” [0023], “Electropermanent magnets may be used to establish net magnetization in a sample, thereby assisting in the image generation process for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” [0003]),
In combination with Moriya where the array nulls the magnetic fields generated by sources outside of the region of interest during operation of the one or more limited magnetic sensors between pulse sequences (“a geomagnetic field nulling coil for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism; an active shield coil for canceling the fluctuating magnetic field; a control device that determines a current for the geomagnetic field nulling coil so as to generate a magnetic field for canceling the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism based on measured values of the multiple magnetic sensors for geomagnetic field cancellation” [0005], “The control device 5 determines whether or not the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field after the cancellation is equal to or less than the reference value (step S17). The measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field after the cancellation is a value measured by the magnetic sensor for active shield 3 after the fluctuating magnetic field is canceled by the active shield coil 9. The reference value is a noise level at which the brain's magnetic field can be measured, and can be set to, for example, 1 pT. If the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field is not less than or equal to the reference value (“NO” in step S17), the process returns to step S15. If the measured value of the fluctuating magnetic field is equal to or less than the reference value (“YES” in step S17), the process proceeds to step S18.” [0055])
As seen in Fig. 2 describes a feedback loop for measuring the magnetic field which requires continuous adjustment in between pulses.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination is proper because the multiple optically pumped magnetometers can measure the brain's magnetic field in a state in which the influence of the magnetic field relevant to the geomagnetism and the influence of the fluctuating magnetic field are avoided [0015], Weinberg 2019 teaches using magnetometers [0035] to measure the magnetic field .
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MALDONADO whose telephone number is 703-756-1421. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-4:00 pm PST M-Th 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/Steven Maldonado/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797