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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, "for diagnostic evaluation" should read --for a diagnostic evaluation--.
Claim 1, line 3, "walls, a wall" should read -- walls, wherein a wall--.
Claim 1, line 5, "components configured" should read --components is configured--.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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.
Claims 4 and 5, line 1, it is unclear if the limitation "the wall" refers to the firstly recited "a wall" in claim 1. Examiner suggests to amend to "at least one of the plurality of walls".
Claim 5, line 2, “or a mumetal is built around a nonmagnetic frame” is unclear as it raises the question if the limitation “is built around a non magnetic frame” applies to just a mumetal or both a permalloy and a mumetal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibuya (US 20190368191 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shibuya teaches a shielded chamber system for diagnostic evaluation of a condition of an individual (Figures 1 - 8; [0025]), comprising:
a. an enclosure (“shielded room 1” [0025] Figures 1 - 8) comprising a plurality of walls (“an upper shielding body 11, a side periphery shielding body 12, a lower shielding body 13” [0025] Figures 1 - 8), a wall comprising a plurality of layers of magnetic shielding material (“permalloy plates 61, aluminum plates 62 and a nonmagnetic material 63” [0028] Figures 1 - 8);
b. one or more application-specific modular components configured to be inserted within the enclosure (instances of “magnetic sensors 83”; Figure 6; [0027], [0030] - [0031]),
wherein an application-specific modular component comprises an array of biomagnetic field sensors configured to sense an electromagnetic field associated with the individual and generate electromagnetic field data therefrom (instances of “magnetic sensors 83”; Figure 6; [0027], [0030] - [0031]); and
c. one or more holes or passthroughs inserted into at least one wall of the plurality of walls (“holes 50” [0028] Figure 3 - 4),
wherein a hole or passthrough is configured for passing electrical or data cabling into and out of the enclosure (“A through hole 50 for letting wirings connected to the unshown measurement equipment and the power cords and cables of the unshown supplementary equipment pass therethrough”; Figures 3 - 4; [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya teaches the wall comprises two or more layers (“permalloy plates 61, aluminum plates 62 and a nonmagnetic material 63” [0028] Figures 1 - 8).
Regarding claim 4, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya teaches the wall comprises a permalloy (“permalloy plates 61” [0028] Figure 8) or a mumetal.
Regarding claim 5, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 4. Shibuya teaches the wall comprising a permalloy (“permalloy plates 61” [0028] Figure 8) or a mumetal is built around a nonmagnetic frame (“a nonmagnetic material 63 such as timber” [0028] Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya teaches the shielded chamber system comprises a mounting system comprising the one or more application-specific modular components (“measurement jig 80” [0027] [0034] Figures 1 - 8).
Regarding claim 14, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya teaches the array of biomagnetic field sensors comprises at least three biomagnetic field sensors (instances of “magnetic sensors 83”; see annotated Shibuya’s Figure 6 below; [0027], [0030] - [0031]).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya in view of Erasala et al (US 20190046059 A1, hereinafter “Erasala”).
Regarding claim 3, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 2. Shibuya does not teach each of the two or more layers has a thickness of between 0.1 and 10 millimeters.
However, Erasala discloses “systems, devices, and methods for sensing a magnetic field such as an electromagnetic field (“EMF”) or a magnetocardiogram (“MCG”) associated with a tissue of an individual” ([0002]) and teaches each of the two or more layers layers has a thickness of between 0.1 and 10 millimeters (“each of the two or more layers has a thickness of from 0.1 to 10 millimeters” claim 6 [0048] [0119]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya, as taught by Erasala, such that each of the two or more layers has a thickness of between 0.1 and 10 millimeters, for the benefit of shielding patients and users from magnetic exposure.
Claims 6 – 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya in view of Ishiyama et al (US 20050192502 A1, hereinafter “Ishiyama”).
Regarding claim 6, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya does not teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is directed to cardiac applications.
However, lshiyama discloses “a magnetocardiograph having a heart disease diagnosis assisting function capable of supporting a doctor's diagnosis” ([0010]) and teaches a system (Figure 1; [0037]), comprising: one of the one or more application-specific modular components is directed to cardiac applications (“magnetocardiograph” abstract [0026] [0010] [0037]; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya to incorporate one of the one or more application-specific modular components is directed to cardiac applications, as taught by Ishiyama, for the benefit of effectively and safely monitoring a patient's cardiac activity (Ishiyama: [0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya does not teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a magnetocardiography ("MCG") module.
However, lshiyama discloses “a magnetocardiograph having a heart disease diagnosis assisting function capable of supporting a doctor's diagnosis” ([0010]) and teaches a system (Figure 1; [0037]), comprising: one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a magnetocardiography ("MCG") module ( “magnetocardiography” and “MCG” Figure 1, [0037] [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya to incorporate one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a magnetocardiography ("MCG") module, as taught by Ishiyama, for the benefit of effectively and safely monitoring a patient's cardiac activity (Ishiyama: [0011]).
Regarding claim 20, Shibuya and Ishiyama teach all limitations of claim 6. The modified invention of Shibuya and Ishiyama teaches one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for fetal magnetocardiography (Ishiyama: fetal magnetocardiograph, Figure 1 [0002], [0037]).
Claims 8 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya and Ishiyama, as applied in claim 6, in view of Matsui et al (US 20080108504 A1, hereinafter “Matsui”).
Regarding claim 8, Shibuya and Ishiyama teach all limitations of claim 6. The modified invention of Shibuya and Ishiyama does not teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is directed to neurological applications.
However, Matsui discloses a “measuring structure for a magneto encephalographic equipment superconducting magnetic-shield” (abstract) and teaches one of the one or more application-specific modular components is directed to neurological applications (“magnetoencephalography” Figure 1, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya and Ishiyama such that one of the one or more application-specific modular components is directed to neurological applications, as taught by Matsui, for the benefit of effectively and safely monitoring a patient's neurological activity.
Regarding claim 9, Shibuya and Ishiyama teach all limitations of claim 8. The modified invention of Shibuya, Ishiyama and Matsui teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a magnetoencephalography ("MEG") module (Matsui: “magnetoencephalography” Figure 1 [0024]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya and Ishiyama, as applied in claim 6, in view of Goodwill et al (WO 2011116229 A2, hereinafter “Goodwill”).
Regarding claim 10, Shibuya and Ishiyama teach all limitations of claim 6. The modified invention of Shibuya and Ishiyama does not teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for magnetorelaxometry, employing magnetization coils for site-specific magnetorelaxometry measurements.
However, Goodwill discloses a “magnetic particle imaging device” (abstract) and teaches one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for magnetorelaxometry (Figures 6A-B; page 1 Iine 21 to page 2 Iine 2, page 75 Iine 1 - 14),
employing magnetization coils for site-specific magnetorelaxometry measurements (Figures 6A-B; page 6 Iines 18-19, page 75 Iines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya and Ishiyama such that one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for magnetorelaxometry, employing magnetization coils for site-specific magnetorelaxometry measurements, as taught by Goodwill, for the benefit of effectively and safely monitoring a patient's neurological activity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya and Ishiyama, as applied in claim 6, in view of Feenan (US 7599728 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Shibuya and Ishiyama teach all limitations of claim 6. The modified invention of Shibuya and Ishiyama does not teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for ultra-low field magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") employing magnetization coils to produce an image of the individual.
However, Feenan discloses a “neonate imaging system” and teaches one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for ultra-low field magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") employing magnetization coils to produce an image of the individual (“MRI system 104”, Figure 1, column 3 Iines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya and Ishiyama such teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for ultra-low field magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") employing magnetization coils to produce an image of the individual, as taught by Feenan, for the benefit of effectively and safely monitoring a patient's neurological activity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya in view of Igarashi et al (JP 2007117669 A, see attached translation, hereinafter “Igarashi”).
Regarding claim 13, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya does not teach the array of biomagnetic field sensors are actuated to create a multi-frame stitched data image.
However, Igarashi discloses “stitching method and device for an MRI image and an MRI apparatus” (abstract) and teaches the array of biomagnetic field sensors are actuated to create a multi-frame stitched data image (“MRI image stitching” page 2 paragraphs 6 – 10, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya such that the array of biomagnetic field sensors are actuated to create a multi-frame stitched data image, as taught by Igarashi, for the benefit of providing a holistic rendering of a patient's affected area (Igarashi: page 2 paragraph 12).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya in view of Matsui.
Regarding claim 15, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya does not teach the array of biomagnetic field sensors is arranged to match a generalized contour of a portion of a body of the individual.
However, Matsui discloses a “measuring structure for a magneto encephalographic equipment superconducting magnetic-shield” (abstract) and teaches the array of biomagnetic field sensors is arranged to match a generalized contour of a portion of a body of the individual (“plurality of SQUID magnetic sensors 15 are mounted on a sensor block 20, which is arranged in the cryogenic vessel 13, spreading over the head accommodating area 131” Figure 1, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya such that the array of biomagnetic field sensors is arranged to match a generalized contour of a portion of a body of the individual, as taught by Matsui, for the benefit of effectively fitting a sensor system to a patient's body and ensure effective data collection.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya in view of Khitun (US 20200081079 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya does not explicitly teaches the array of biomagnetic field sensors comprises optically pumped magnetometer sensors, magnetic induction sensors, magneto- resistive sensors, SQUID sensors, nitrogen vacancy diamonds, fluxgate magnetometers, or a combination thereof.
However, Khitun discloses a “magnetic field detector” (abstract) and teaches an array of biomagnetic field sensors comprises optically pumped magnetometer sensors, magnetic induction sensors, magneto- resistive sensors (“magneto-resistive” [0058]), SQUID sensors (“superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUID)” [0058]), nitrogen vacancy diamonds, fluxgate magnetometers (“solid state magnetometers (e.g. fluxgate” [0058]), or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shbuya such that the array of biomagnetic field sensors comprises optically pumped magnetometer sensors, magnetic induction sensors, magneto- resistive sensors, SQUID sensors, nitrogen vacancy diamonds, fluxgate magnetometers, or a combination thereof, as taught by Khitun, for the benefit of monitoring a patient's safety and activity.
Regarding claim 17, Shibuya and Khitun teach all limitations of claim 16. The modified invention of Shibuya and Khitun teaches the fluxgate magnetometers (Khitun: “solid state magnetometers (e.g. fluxgate” [0058]) comprise Yttrium Iron Garnet film (Khitun: [0022]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya in view of Hu et al (US 20050285492 A1, hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 18, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya teaches a mounting system to insert the one or more application-specific modular components within the enclosure (“measurement jig 80” [0027] [0034] Figures 1 - 8).
Shibuya does not teach the mounting system comprises a magnetic rail system.
However, Hu discloses a “sliding rail mounting structure” and teaches a mounting system comprises a magnetic rail system (Figures 2 - 3; [0013] - [0014], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya such that the mounting system comprises a magnetic rail system, as taught by Hu, for the benefit of effectively releasably mounting the sensor assembly within the chamber (Hu: [0006]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya in view of Feenan.
Regarding claim 19, Shibuya teaches all limitations of claim 1. Shibuya does not teach the shield chamber system further comprising a viewing area for patient monitoring.
However, Feenan discloses a “neonate imaging system” and teaches a system further comprising a viewing area for patient monitoring (“a viewing window (not shown) into magnet bore 132 for visually monitoring the neonate during imaging. According to this illustrative embodiment, at least a portion of neonate carriage 111 is composed of a clear material, such as a clear plastic material, that permits viewing through a viewing window in magnet 115 and into neonate carriage 111” col 7 In 31 – 37, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya such that the shield chamber system further comprising a viewing area for patient monitoring, as taught by Feenan, for the benefit of allowing a user to monitor a patient during system operation while being shielded from magnetic field activity.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya, Ishiyama and Matsui, as applied in claim 8, in view of Koninklijke et al (JP 2016530019 A, see attached translation, hereinafter “Koninklijke”).
Regarding claim 21, Shibuya, Ishiyama and Matsui teach all limitations of claim 8. The modified invention of Shibuya, Ishiyama and Matsui does not teach one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for fetal magnetoencephalography.
However, Koninklijke discloses a “system for extracting a fetal heart rate from a maternal signal by a computer processor” and teaches one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for fetal magnetoencephalography (“fetal magnetocardiogram (MCG)”, page 7 paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shibuya, Ishiyama and Matsui such that one of the one or more application-specific modular components is a module for fetal magnetoencephalography, as taught by Koninklijke, for the benefit of effectively and safely monitoring a patient's biological activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seki et al (US 20070040554 A1) discloses a “magnetic shielding apparatus having a high shielding effect” (abstract) and teaches an array of biomagnetic field sensors comprises optically pumped magnetometer sensors ([0121]), magnetic induction sensors, magneto- resistive sensors ([0121]), SQUID sensors ([0039] – [0042], [0121]), nitrogen vacancy diamonds, fluxgate magnetometers ([0121]), or a combination thereof ([0121]).
Seki et al (US 20040106863 A1) discloses “a magnetic shield which can shield external magnetic fields” (abstract) and teaches layers has a thickness of between 1 and 10 millimeters.
Kazami (JP 2007311523 A) discloses “a magnetic shield room” (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791