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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/16/2025 have been entered. Currently claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14-17, 20-23, and 25 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 16 recites the limitation “the timecourse, location and orientation” and should be changed to “the timecourse, the location, and the orientation”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 12-13 recite the limitation “performing source reconstruction reduces an error in the timecourse, location and orientation” and should be changed to “performing the source reconstruction reduces an error in the timecourse, the location, and the orientation”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 18 recites the limitation “the timecourse, location and orientation” and should be changed to “the timecourse, the location, and the orientation”.
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 12-17 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.
Regarding claim 12, line 10 recites “the at least a first subset of sensor and the at least a second subset of sensors”. It is unclear if this is the same or different first and second subset of sensors recited earlier in the claim. For examination purposes, it shall be considered the same.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14, 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford et al., (US20210369166A1) in view of Kim et al., (US20190192021A1) and in further view Sekihara et al., “Performance of an MEG Adaptive-Beamformer Source Reconstruction Technique in the Presence of Additive Low-Rank Interference” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004 (hereinafter “Sekihara”).
Regarding claim 1, Alford teaches of a method of reducing error in magnetoencephalography arising from the presence of a non-neuromagnetic field, comprising (Abstract Shielding arrangement for magnetoencephalography (MEG) that reduces background magnetic fields):
measuring, using a sensor array for measuring neuromagnetic fields (fig. 1 array of magnetometers 160 [0033]), magnetic field at a plurality of discrete locations around a subject's head to provide sensor data ([0054] the system can provide full head coverage), wherein the magnetic field measured one or more of the locations includes a neuromagnetic field from a source of interest within a subject's brain (fig. 1a measuring neural signals from one or more magnetic fields sources of interest in the brain) and a non-neuromagnetic field from a source of no interest external to the brain ([0033] also measures non-biological signals).
However, Alford fails to explicitly disclose measuring, at least a first subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a first direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location, and measuring, at least a second subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a second direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction; and performing source reconstruction using the sensor data.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches measuring, at locations comprising a first subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a first direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location, and measuring, at locations comprising a second subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a second direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction; ([0006] a first magnetic field sensors measuring a first component of the magnetic field, a second magnetic field sensors measuring a second component of the magnetic field, the first and second components being orthogonal from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
However, the combination of references fails to explicitly disclose performing source reconstruction using the sensor data comprising determining at least one of a timecourse, location and orientation of the source of interest, wherein performing source reconstruction reduces an error in the at least one of the timecourse, location and orientation of the source of interest arising from the source of no interest external to the brain.
In the same neuromagnetic field of endeavor, Sekihara teaches performing source reconstruction using the sensor data comprising determining at least one of a timecourse of the source of interest (pg. 91 B. Adaptive-Beamformer Source Reconstruction This section teaches the formula s(r,t) that is the estimated source-moment time course obtained as the beamformer output; pg. 90 the signal processing is done to neuromagnetic sources), wherein performing source reconstruction reduces an error in the at least one of the timecourse of the source of interest arising from the source of no interest external to the brain (pg. 90 the paper analyzes the influence of external interference on the adaptive beamformer reconstruction results and determined that the adaptive beamformer techniques are insensitive to such interference; therefore, this type of reconstruction would reduce the error of the estimated time course).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Alford with the source reconstruction of Sekihara, as this would allow for influence of low rank interference on the reconstruction results of MEG adaptive beamformer techniques to be negligible (see Sekihara pg. 98).
Regarding claim 3, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Alford further teaches a spatially non- uniform background magnetic field ([0074]the residual ambient background magnetic field after reduction using the active shield coils 418 is not uniform within the passively shielded enclosure 407).
Regarding claim 4, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose measuring at least some locations, a magnetic field along the first and second directions.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches measuring at least some locations, a magnetic field along the first and second directions ([0006] a first magnetic field sensors measuring a first component of the magnetic field, a second magnetic field sensors measuring a second component of the magnetic field, the first and second components being orthogonal from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially orthogonal; and/or wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially the same at each location.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially orthogonal; and/or wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially the same at each location. ([0006] a first magnetic field sensors measuring a first component of the magnetic field, a second magnetic field sensors measuring a second component of the magnetic field, the first and second components being orthogonal from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly measuring, at least a third subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a third direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction and the second direction.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches measuring, at least a third subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a third direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction and the second direction (fig. 2 the z component of is perpendicular to the x-y plane and therefore parallel to the radial axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second direction is aligned substantially parallel to the radial axis at the respective location.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the second direction is aligned substantially parallel to the radial axis at the respective location (fig. 2 the z component of is perpendicular to the x-y plane and therefore parallel to the radial axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing source reconstruction comprising using a beamformer or a dipole fit or a minimum-norm estimate approach.
In the same brain imaging field of endeavor, Sekihara teaches wherein performing source reconstruction comprising using a beamformer approach (pg. 91 B. Adaptive-Beamformer Source Reconstruction This section teaches the formula s(r,t) that is the estimated source-moment time course obtained as the beamformer output; pg. 90 the signal processing is done to neuromagnetic sources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Alford with the adaptive beamformer source reconstruction of Sekihara, as this would allow for influence of low rank interference on the reconstruction results of MEG adaptive beamformer techniques to be negligible (see Sekihara pg. 98).
Regarding claim 11, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Alford further teaches where each sensor is or comprises an optically pumped magnetometer (fig. 1A the one or more magnetometers are OPMs [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Alford teaches of a use of a sensory array for measuring neuromagnetic fields at a plurality of discrete locations around a subject’s head for reducing error in magnetoencephalography associated with non-neuromagnetic fields, wherein(Abstract Shielding arrangement for magnetoencephalography (MEG) that reduces background magnetic fields).
However, Alford fails to explicitly disclose at least a first subset of sensors are configured to measure a magnetic field along a first direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective sensor location; and at least a second subset of sensors are configured to measure a magnetic field along a second direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective sensor location that is different to the first direction.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches at least a first subset of sensors are configured to measure a magnetic field along a first direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective sensor location; and at least a second subset of sensors are configured to measure a magnetic field along a second direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective sensor location that is different to the first direction ([0006] a first magnetic field sensors measuring a first component of the magnetic field, a second magnetic field sensors measuring a second component of the magnetic field, the first and second components being orthogonal from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the use of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
However, the combination of references fails to explicitly disclose performing source reconstruction using the sensor data comprising determining at least one of a timecourse, location and orientation of the source of interest, wherein performing source reconstruction reduces an error in the at least one of the timecourse, location and orientation of the source of interest arising from the source of no interest external to the brain.
In the same neuromagnetic field of endeavor, Sekihara teaches performing source reconstruction using the sensor data comprising determining at least one of a timecourse of the source of interest (pg. 91 B. Adaptive-Beamformer Source Reconstruction This section teaches the formula s(r,t) that is the estimated source-moment time course obtained as the beamformer output; pg. 90 the signal processing is done to neuromagnetic sources), wherein performing source reconstruction reduces an error in the at least one of the timecourse of the source of interest arising from the source of no interest external to the brain (pg. 90 the paper analyzes the influence of external interference on the adaptive beamformer reconstruction results and determined that the adaptive beamformer techniques are insensitive to such interference; therefore, this type of reconstruction would reduce the error of the estimated time course).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of measurements obtained from the data from the first and the second subset of sensors of modified Alford with the source reconstruction of Sekihara, as this would allow for influence of low rank interference on the reconstruction results of MEG adaptive beamformer techniques to be negligible (see Sekihara pg. 98).
Regarding claim 14, modified Alford teaches the use of claim 12, wherein Alford further teaches a spatially non- uniform background magnetic field ([0074]the residual ambient background magnetic field after reduction using the active shield coils 418 is not uniform within the passively shielded enclosure 407).
Regarding claim 16, modified Alford teaches the use of claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially orthogonal.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially orthogonal ([0006] a first magnetic field sensors measuring a first component of the magnetic field, a second magnetic field sensors measuring a second component of the magnetic field, the first and second components being orthogonal from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the use of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Alford teaches the use of claim 12, but fails to explicitly measuring, at least a third subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a third direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction and the second direction.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches measuring, at least a third subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a third direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction and the second direction (fig. 2 the z component of is perpendicular to the x-y plane and therefore parallel to the radial axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the use of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Alford teaches the method of claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second direction is aligned substantially parallel to the radial axis at the respective location.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the second direction is aligned substantially parallel to the radial axis at the respective location (fig. 2 the z component of is perpendicular to the x-y plane and therefore parallel to the radial axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the use of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Alford teaches the use of claim 12, wherein Alford further teaches where each sensor is or comprises an optically pumped magnetometer (fig. 1A the one or more magnetometers are OPMs [0033]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford in view of Kim and Sekihara as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nishikawa et al., (US20130165766A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Alford teaches the use of claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least some of the sensors are dual-axis sensors configured to measure a magnetic field along the first direction and the second direction.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Nishikawa teaches at least some of the sensors are dual-axis sensors configured to measure the magnetic field along the first direction and the second direction ([0104] the magnetic sensor may detect in two directions. In the case of the directions of two axes, a magnetic sensor may include a first tunnel magneto-resistive element array in which the direction of magnetization of the fixed magnetic layer is fixed in a first direction, and a second tunnel magneto-resistive element array in which the direction of magnetization of the fixed magnetic layer is fixed in a second direction which intersects with the first direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify at least some of the sensors of modified Alford with the dual axis sensors of Nishikawa, as this would allow for increased magnetism information to be used for diagnosis (see Nishikawa [0017]).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford in view of Kim and Sekihara and in further view of Liang.
Regarding claim 22, Alford teaches of a system of magnetoencephalography comprising (Abstract magnetoencephalography (MEG) system that reduces background magnetic fields with a shielding arrangement):
a sensor array for measuring neuromagnetic fields at a plurality of discrete locations around a subject’s head and output sensor data (fig. 1 array of magnetometers 160 [0033]; [0054] the system can provide full head coverage), wherein:
wherein the sensor data comprises at least one magnetic field measured at each sensor location ([0041] all the magnetometers are operational, and would detect at least one magnetic field), and at a least some of the locations includes a neuromagnetic field from a source of interest within a subject's brain (fig. 1a measuring neural signals from one or more magnetic fields sources of interest in the brain) and a non-neuromagnetic field from a source of no interest external to the brain ([0033] also measures non-biological signals),
wherein the system is configured to reduce error in magnetoencephalography associated with the non-neuromagnetic field (Abstract the shielding reduces the ambient background magnetic field, and therefore would reduce the error from non-neuromagnetic fields).
However, Alford fails to explicitly disclose measuring, at least a first subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a first direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location, and measuring, at least a second subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a second direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction; and performing source reconstruction using the sensor data.
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Kim teaches measuring, at least a first subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a first direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location, and measuring, at least a second subset of the locations, a magnetic field along a second direction relative to a radial axis intersecting the respective location which is different to the first direction; and performing source reconstruction using the sensor data ([0006] a first magnetic field sensors measuring a first component of the magnetic field, a second magnetic field sensors measuring a second component of the magnetic field, the first and second components being orthogonal from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Alford to measure the components of the magnetic field as taught by Kim, as this would enables sensitive and robust measurement of weak bio-magnetic fields such that of the brain (see Kim [0006]).
However, the combination of references fails to explicitly disclose performing source reconstruction using the sensor data comprising determining at least one of a timecourse, location and orientation of the source of interest, wherein performing source reconstruction reduces an error in the at least one of the timecourse, location and orientation of the source of interest arising from the source of no interest external to the brain.
In the same neuromagnetic field of endeavor, Sekihara teaches performing source reconstruction using the sensor data comprising determining at least one of a timecourse of the source of interest (pg. 91 B. Adaptive-Beamformer Source Reconstruction This section teaches the formula s(r,t) that is the estimated source-moment time course obtained as the beamformer output; pg. 90 the signal processing is done to neuromagnetic sources), wherein performing source reconstruction reduces an error in the at least one of the timecourse of the source of interest arising from the source of no interest external to the brain (pg. 90 the paper analyzes the influence of external interference on the adaptive beamformer reconstruction results and determined that the adaptive beamformer techniques are insensitive to such interference; therefore, this type of reconstruction would reduce the error of the estimated time course).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Alford with the source reconstruction of Sekihara, as this would allow for influence of low rank interference on the reconstruction results of MEG adaptive beamformer techniques to be negligible (see Sekihara pg. 98).
However the combination of references are silent regarding a processing module configured to perform source reconstruction using the sensor data
In the same magnetoencephalography field of endeavor, Liang teaches a processing module configured to perform source reconstruction using the sensor data ([0031] the data processing unit performs a source reconstruction method such as beamformer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Alford with the reconstruction method of Liang, as this would allow for early detection of brain and psychological diseases (see Liang [0014]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Alford teaches the system of claim 22, wherein Alford further teaches where each sensor of the sensory array comprises an optically pumped magnetometer (fig. 1A the one or more magnetometers are OPMs [0033]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford in view of Kim and Liang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Yamagata (US20180242865A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Alford teaches the system of claim 22, but fails to explicitly disclose at least some of the sensors are tri-axial sensors configured to measure a magnetic field along the first, second and third directions.
However in the same magnetic field of endeavor, Yamagata teaches at least some of the sensors are tri-axial sensors configured to measure a magnetic field along the first, second and third directions (fig. 3 triaxial sensors 111 detect magnetic in three directions [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the at least some of the sensors of modified Alford with the triaxial sensors of Yamagata, as this would allow for sufficient artifact removal, as uniaxial sensors may be insufficient for artifact removal (see Yamagata [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-17, 20-23, and 25 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 MICHAEL Y FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0952. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00pm.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 5712722714. 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.
/MICHAEL YIMING FANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798