DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 2-11, and 13-21 are pending in the application. Claims 2-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 .
Prosecution Reopened
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 2-11, and 13-21 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
Claim 2-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 for the reasons set forth below.
The Notice of Allowance mailed 2/10/2026 contained examiner amendments. The claims as amended by the examiner’s amendment are the claims subject to further examination (MPEP 1308(III)).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (U.S PGPub 2013/0165766 A1) in view of Salahuddin et al. (WO 0218/111769 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishikawa teaches a system for a wearable field sensing device for biological electromagnetic (EM) field measurement (Abstract) comprising:
a wearable structure (Fig. 11, 4) [0089];
a biological sensor array (Fig. 3B, 6)+(Fig. 11, 41) (The array encompasses the sensors 6 on all the components 41) [0061]+[0090], comprising an array of sensors (Fig. 3B, 6) situated on an interior of the wearable structure [0090]-[0091], and a plurality of circuits (Fig. 11, 41) [0060]+[0089]-[0090], wherein each circuit of the plurality of circuits is coupled to multiple sensors of the array of sensors (Fig. 3A, multiple TMR array modules 6 are coupled to 41) [0060];
a power system, comprising an energy source for the system [0055]-[0056] (as the system receives power through the power line, the system necessarily contains power system containing an energy source to provide the power); and
control circuitry (Fig. 1, 2) [0055]-[0056], conductively coupled to the biological sensor array through the plurality of circuits (Fig. 1, 2 is connected to the magnetometers 6 through 41) [0060].
Nishikawa fails to teaches the magnetic sensors of the array are an array of acoustically driven ferromagnetic resonance (ADFMR) sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Nishikawa to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017]. One ordinary skill would recognize that, in the combination, as the circuits 41 of Nishikawa are connected to ADFMR sensors of Salahuddin, the circuits can be considered ADFMR circuits.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa further teaches wherein the wearable structure comprises a cap (Fig. 11, 4) shaped to, at least, partially cover a head region of a user for the biological EM field measurement [0090]-[0091]+[0099].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa further teaches wherein the biological sensor array comprises a set of sensor devices (Fig. 3A+3B, 6) [0059].
Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach the sensors are packaged ADFMR sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013]. These ADFMR sensors are packaged ADFMR sensors (Figure 4) [0018] (Device 20 is considered a package as it contains multiple components (24, 26, 28) on a single substrate (22)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Nishikawa to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017].
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach wherein each ADFMR sensor of the array of ADFMR sensors comprises a separate piezoelectric substrate.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are ADFMR sensor (Fig. 1) [0013], and the sensor contains its own piezoelectric substrate [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Nishikawa to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017]. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, as Salahuddin teaches that an ADFMR sensor contains its own piezoelectric substrate, in the combination each of the ADFMR sensors of the array would contain their own (i.e. a separate) piezoelectric substrate.
Claims 3, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Salahuddin as applied to claim 2 and 7, respectively, above, and further in view of Iwasaki et al. (U.S PGPub 2018/0081001 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the wearable structure comprises a patch, wherein the patch is shaped to, at least, partially cover a user body region for the biological EM field measurement.
Iwasaki further teaches wherein the wearable structure comprises a patch (Fig. 16, 305), wherein the patch is shaped to, at least, partially cover a user body region for the biological EM field measurement [0097]-[0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system so the wearable device is patch shaped, as taught by Iwasaki, because this allows the system to better measure the magnetic field of the heart, as recognized by Iwasaki [0098], thereby increasing the diagnostic capabilities of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa further teaches the cap comprises a deformable cap (Fig. 11, 4) such that the deformable cap may sufficiently change in size and shape to fit the head region of the user [0089], where the deformable cap comprises deformable regions that may change in size and shape [0089].
Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach rigid regions that do not change in size and shape.
Iwasaki further teaches wherein the cap (Fig. 15, 304) comprises rigid regions that do not change in size and shape [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to include rigid regions, as taught by Iwasaki, because the hard base has good wearability and adhesiveness for the human body, thereby improving the fit of the device, as recognized by Iwasaki [0096].
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the biological sensor array is situated on the rigid regions of the deformable cap.
Iwasaki further teaches wherein the biological sensor array is situated on the rigid regions of the deformable cap [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to have the sensors on the hard regions, as taught by Iwasaki, because the hard base has good wearability and adhesiveness for the human body, thereby improving the fit of the device, as recognized by Iwasaki [0096].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the biological sensor array comprises 1-10 sensors.
Iwasaki further teaches wherein the biological sensor array comprises 1-10 sensors (Fig. 16, 301) (There are 9 sensors) [0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the number of sensors of Nishikawa to have between 1-10 sensors, as the substitution for one known number of sensors with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using 1-10 sensors are reasonably predictable.
The combination fails to teach the sensors are ADFMR sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach the biological sensor array comprises 10-100 sensors.
Iwasaki further teaches the biological sensor array comprises 10-100 sensors [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the number of sensors of Nishikawa to have between 10-100 sensors, as the substitution for one known number of sensors with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using 10-100 sensors are reasonably predictable.
The combination fails to teach the sensors are ADFMR sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the biological sensor array comprises 100-1000 sensors.
Iwasaki further teaches wherein the biological sensor array comprises 100-1000 sensors [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the number of sensors of Nishikawa to have between 100-1000 sensors, as the substitution for one known number of sensors with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using 100-1000 sensors are reasonably predictable.
The combination fails to teach the sensors are ADFMR sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017].
Claims 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Salahuddin as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Passmore (U.S PGPub 2017/0086681 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to teach the sensors are ADFMR sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017].
The combined system fails to explicitly teach wherein the biological sensor array comprises 1,000-10,000 sensors.
Passmore teaches a system of wearable biological sensors (Abstract). The variable measured can be magnetic field [0017]. This system can have a 1,000 sensors in the array [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the number of sensors in the array of the combination with 1,000 sensors, as taught by Passmore, as the substitution for one known number of magnetic field sensors with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using 1,000 sensors are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to teach the sensors are ADFMR sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use an array of ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017].
The combined system fails to explicitly teach wherein the biological sensor array comprises between 10,000-100,000 ADFMR sensors.
Passmore teaches a system of wearable biological sensors (Abstract). The variable measured can be magnetic field [0017]. This system can have a 100,000 sensors in the array [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the number of sensors in the array of the combined system with 1,000 sensors, as taught by Passmore, as the substitution for one known number of magnetic field sensors with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using 100,000 sensors are reasonably predictable.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Salahuddin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0334559 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed.
The combination fails to explicitly teach further comprising an ambient sensor array, wherein the ambient sensor array is electrically coupled to the control circuitry and is configured to measure ambient EM fields in proximity of the wearable structure.
Anderson teaches a system for suppressing interference in MEG measurements (Abstract). This system contains an array of ambient sensor array (Fig. 3, 304), which is electrically coupled to control circuitry (Fig. 1A, 150) [0089] and is configured to measure ambient EM fields in proximity of the wearable structure [0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to include an ambient sensor array, as taught by Anderson, because knowing the ambient field allows the system to correct for noise in the measured MEG signal, as recognized by Anderson [0078], thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The system of Anderson fails to teach wherein at least a subset of the ambient sensor array sensors comprises ADFMR sensors.
Salahuddin teaches magnetic field sensors (Abstract). These sensors are acoustically driven ferromagnetic sensors (Fig. 1) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use ADFMR sensors, as taught by Salahuddin, because these sensors allow the system to use less power, thereby making the detector more efficient, as recognized by Salahuddin [0017].
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Nishikawa fails to teaches wherein at least a subset of the ambient sensor array sensors comprises magnetometers.
Anderson teaches a system for suppressing interference in MEG measurements (Abstract). This system contains an array of ambient sensor array (Fig. 3, 304), which is electrically coupled to control circuitry (Fig. 1A, 150) [0089] and is configured to measure ambient EM fields in proximity of the wearable structure [0088]. The magnetic field sensors are magnetometers [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to include an ambient sensor array, as taught by Anderson, because knowing the ambient field allows the system to correct for noise in the measured MEG signal, as recognized by Anderson [0078], thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Salahuddin, and Anderson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of He et al. (U.S PGPub 2016/0143541 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach sensor shielding, wherein the sensor shielding comprises a mu-metal covering over the biological sensor array.
He teaches a mu-metal covering the biological sensor array [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the sensor array covered by a mu-metal, as taught by He, because this reduces the effect of external magnetic fields, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurement, as recognized by He [0059].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Salahuddin, and Anderson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Alford et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0348378 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to teach sensor shielding, wherein the sensor shielding comprises electrical coils configured to generate a magnetic field to counteract the measured ambient EM fields.
Alford teaches a system for generating a compensating magnetic field (Abstract). This system contains sensor shielding which comprises electrical coils [0081] to generate a magnetic field to counteract measure ambient EM fields [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to include the sensor shielding, as taught by Alford, because this allows the system to actively shield the coils in a wearable system thereby allowing the system to more accurately obtain small magnetic fields, as recognized by Alford [0002]-[0003].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Salahuddin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pratt et al. (U.S PGPub 2021/0041512 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references teaches the invention as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the system, through the control circuitry, is enabled to function in a low power mode, wherein only a subset of the sensors from the biological sensor array are active until biological activity is detected.
Pratt teaches a wearable MEG (Abstract). This system only activates a subset of magnetometers in order to save power [0061]. This is controlled by a controller [0034]. This system activates the sensors when it detects biological activity [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to have a low power mode which operates a subset of the sensor array, as taught by Pratt, because this saves power, thereby allowing the wearable sensor to operate for longer periods of time, as recognized by Pratt [0061].
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Salahuddin, and Pratt as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of He et al. (U.S PGPub 2016/0143541 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to teach further wherein the biological sensor array comprises at least one electroencephalography sensor; wherein the biological activity is detected based on a signal from the at least one electroencephalography sensor.
He teaches a combined EEG and MEG system (Abstract). This system contains an electrode array which measures EEG signals (Fig. 2, EEG/MEG) [0032]. This system measures both EEG and MEG signals at the same time [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to include an EEG sensor and measure the EEG signal, as taught by He, because this provides high temporal resolution of the neural activity, as recognized by He [0068]. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, as the brain activity of Pratt is measured with MEG, when viewed with HE both EEG and MEG would measure the brain activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 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. The claim is now rejected under a combination of Nishikawa and Salahuddin, as detailed above. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103. For similar reasons, the dependent claims also remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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 (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights