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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “a signal noise segregating section” should not be interpreted under 112(f) in view of the tensor decomposition disclosure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the term “section” is a generic nonce term that does not connote sufficiently definite structure and is defined solely by the function I performs. The claim does not recite structural components, circuitry, processor configuration or a defined algorithm for this section. Although specification discloses detailed tensor decomposition procedures [0039-63], those disclosures relate to tensor decomposition section, with respect to the segregating section, [0040] merely restates the function, and [0065] provides only a qualitative explanation. No specific structural or algorithmic implementation is disclosed.
Applicant contends that [0065] demonstrates possession of the segregation feature as rejected under 112(a). Examiner respectfully disagrees while [0065] describes that magnetic noise may be detected throughout space and magnetic signal near a source, the specification does not disclose a defined decision rule, threshold, or objective classification procedure by which the segregating section determines which decomposition result represents noise versus signal. The CP decomposition formulas [0044-63], describe decomposition only, they do not disclose how the resulting components are evaluated or classified. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed segregation implementation.
Applicant further argues that the claims are definite in view of the spatial explanation in the specification. The claims recite components “representing the magnetic signal” and “representing the magnetic noise” without reciting objective criteria for determining when a decomposition result satisfies either condition. The specification provides only a qualitative spatial description [0065], and does not define measurable boundaries or classification standards. Further because the limitation is interpreted under 112(f) and corresponding structure is not adequately disclosed, the meets and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Applicant argues that Derksen performs decomposition based de noising only on a “training tensor” for machine learning and therefor does not disclose tensor decomposing a measurement result segregating signal and noise.
Examiner respectfully disagrees Derksen discloses decomposition based de noising of tensor data [0042] and separation structured tensor components from noise components [0044]. The fact that Derksen’s discusses training tensors does not limit the disclosed tensor decomposition technique to machine learning context. The reference teaches decomposition based denoising of multidimensional tensor data generally. Clark teaches obtaining magnetic gradient tensor measurements [0016, 19, 45] and addressing background magnetic interface [0060-62]. Applying Derksen’s known tensor decomposition denoising technique to Clark’s magnetic tensor measurements would have been a predictable use of known prior art elements to improve signal clarity.
For arguments relates to claims 2- 16, please Clark’s [0011, 13, 14, 19, 129] and Derksen [0044].
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a signal noise segregating section” in claim(s) 1, 12, 15 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
6. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 1, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, 12, 15 and 16, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure of “a signal noise segregating section” the specification only states that A signal noise segregating section is arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise [0006], but fails to discloses any corresponding algorithm or structural details to performing segregation. The disclosure is purely functional. The original disclosure doesn’t reasonably demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claim features at issue because it does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which these features are implemented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claim 1, 12, 15-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 15-16, specifically, the limitation “a signal noise segregating section” is fully functional. Although the specification acknowledges this section ([0006]), no corresponding structure or algorithm is described, leaving the scope indefinite.
Regarding claims 17, specifically the limitation “obtained throughout a space in which the measurement result is measured” is vague and fully functional, and the claim fails to provide any obvious structure, algorithm or measurable criteria for determining when a decomposition result is considered to be “throughout” the space. No specific bounders for “space”, what degree of presences qualifies as “throughout” or how such determination is made in the claimed apparatus is being specified, leaving the scope indefinite.
In addition, dependent claims 2-11, 13-14 are also rejected because they depend and further limit the independent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Publication 20100211337) in view of Derksen (U.S. Publication 20210338171).
Regarding claim 1, Clark teaches a magnetic signal noise measuring apparatus (“provides for analysis of a number of gradient tensor measurements along a profile to obtain a unique solution, which also averages out noise in the individual measurements” [0016]), comprising: a magnetic measuring section (“A sensor 110 for obtaining measurements of the complete magnetic gradient tensor” [0045]) arranged to measure magnetic noise and a magnetic signal generated by a magnetic signal source as a tensor of second or higher order (a magnet measuring section in the form of a magnetic gradient sensor comprising arrays of triaxial magnetometers for measuring a magnetic gradient tensor, a second order or higher tensor “analysis of a number of gradient tensor measurements along a profile to obtain a unique solution, which also averages out noise in the individual measurements”[0016, 19]);
Clark does not explicitly teach a tensor decomposing section arranged to tensor-decompose a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section; and a signal noise segregating section arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise.
However, Derksen address noise separation in tensor measurement data teaches a tensor decomposing section arranged to tensor-decompose a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section ([0027] teaches a tensor decomposing section configured to apply higher order tensor decomposition techniques to measured data “The tensor amplification-based decomposition aspects of the disclosed methods and systems are now introduced. For each tensor T, in custom-character, viewed as a multi-linear function, the following operation is defined to amplify the low rank structure of the tensor….”); and a signal noise segregating section arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise (segregating tensor decomposition results in to one representing signal and one representing noise “The procedure determines the structure of the tensor and, in so doing, determines a number of factors. In some cases, the act 102 includes decomposition-based de-noising of the training tensor..” [0042] - “The tensor factors A and C express the correlation of the components in the tensor decomposition to the different choices of delta and to different sampling windows for physiological signal data..” [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the higher order tensor decomposition technique of Derksen in Clark as both references are directed to analyzing multidimensional sensor measurements data to gain the advantage of effectively segregating magnetic field signal from magnetic noise thereby improving signal clarity and accuracy of extracted magnetic field information without requiring new hardware.
Regarding claim 2, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic measuring section is a two-dimensional sensor array with magnetic sensors arranged in a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other (“an array of at least three non-collinear triaxial magnetometers, a set of three intrinsic single axis gradiometers rotating about differently oriented axes, arrays of intrinsic axial and/or planar gradiometers with referencing magnetometers ,.. the gradient tensor has three orthogonal two-fold axes of symmetry” [0019, 0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the tensor is of third or higher order, and the magnetic measuring section is arranged to be moved in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction during measurement (“elative movement between a magnetic gradient tensor sensor and the magnetized body, along a profile, obtaining a plurality of magnetic gradient tensor measurements corresponding to points along the profile, at different relative orientations between the sensor and magnetized body”[0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic measuring section is a one-dimensional sensor array with magnetic sensors arranged in one of a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other (“a single tensor gradiometer that moves relative to the target. Such a sensor may comprise an array of at least three non-collinear triaxial magnetometers, a set of three intrinsic single axis gradiometers rotating about differently oriented axes, arrays of intrinsic axial and/or planar gradiometers with referencing magnetometer(s), or other devices” [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the tensor is of third or higher order, and the magnetic measuring section is arranged to be rotated about a rotation axis running in the first direction or the second direction during measurement (“a set of three intrinsic single axis gradiometers rotating about differently oriented axes, arrays of intrinsic axial and/or planar gradiometers with referencing magnetometer (” [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic measuring section includes magnetic sensors arranged on a predetermined plane and in three or more directions intersecting with each other at one point (planar arrangements intersecting at one point [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the tensor is of third or higher order, and the magnetic measuring section is arranged to be moved in a direction orthogonal to the plane during measurement (movement of the sensor in a direction orthogonal to the plane [0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic measuring section includes a single magnetic sensor (single triaxial magnetometer used to measurement [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic measuring section is a three-dimensional sensor array with magnetic sensors arranged in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction that are orthogonal to each other (“uch a sensor may comprise an array of at least three non-collinear triaxial magnetometers, a set of three intrinsic single axis gradiometers rotating about differently oriented axes, arrays of intrinsic axial and/or planar gradiometers with referencing magnetometer(s), or other devices” [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic measuring section includes a plurality of magnetic sensors arranged on a curved plane (curved or portal style configuration of non-planar sensor arrangements [0129]).
Regarding claim 11, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the tensor is of third or higher order and provides a result of measurement of the magnetic signal and the magnetic noise associated with a spatial position or the position and time (tensor measurements of third and higher order associated with position and time [0022-23]).
Regarding claim 12, Clark does not explicitly teach a plurality of the decomposition results are ones representing the magnetic noise having magnetic gradient directions different from each other.
However, Derksen address noise separation in tensor measurement data teaches a plurality of the decomposition results are ones representing the magnetic noise having magnetic gradient directions different from each other (tensor decomposition providing multiple orthogonal components including decomposition results representing noise in different gradient directions [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the higher order tensor decomposition technique of Derksen in Clark as both references are directed to analyzing multidimensional sensor measurements data to gain the advantage of effectively segregating magnetic field signal from magnetic noise thereby improving signal clarity and accuracy of extracted magnetic field information without requiring new hardware.
Regarding claim 13, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic noise and the magnetic signal each have a constant value (“a second aspect the present invention provides a device for locating and characterizing a magnetized body, the device” [0013]).
Regarding claim 14, Clark as modified further teaches wherein the magnetic noise and the magnetic signal change over time (“a sensor for obtaining a plurality of magnetic gradient tensor measurements at different relative orientations between the sensor and a magnetized body, during relative movement between the sensor and the magnetized body along a profile” [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, the method recited is intrinsic to the apparatus recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Clark (U.S. Publication 20100211337) in view of Derksen (U.S. Publication 20210338171) as the recited method steps will be performed during the normal operation of the apparatus, as discussed above with regard to claim 1
Regarding claim 16, the structure recited is intrinsic to the method recited in claim 15, as disclosed by Clark (U.S. Publication 20100211337) in view of Derksen (U.S. Publication 20210338171) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation of the method, as discussed above with regard to claim 15. Clark as modified further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program of instructions for execution by a computer to perform (“The system 700 includes a computing system 702 having a processor 704, a memory 706, a display 708, and a data store 710. Instructions stored in the memory 706 are executed by the processor 704 to implement one or more of the acts of the above-described methods” [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the higher order tensor decomposition technique of Derksen in Clark as both references are directed to analyzing multidimensional sensor measurements data to gain the advantage of effectively segregating magnetic field signal from magnetic noise thereby improving signal clarity and accuracy of extracted magnetic field information without requiring new hardware.
Regarding claim 17, Clark does not explicitly teach decomposition result is determined to be the one representing the magnetic noise when the decomposition result is obtained throughout a space in which the measurement result is measured.
However, Derksen address noise separation in tensor measurement data teaches decomposition result is determined to be the one representing the magnetic noise when the decomposition result is obtained throughout a space in which the measurement result is measured (noise separation in tensor measurement data, tensor decomposition and decomposition based de noising [0042,44], Tensor decomposition produces components corresponding to structured signal and noise).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine that a decomposition result represents magnetic noise when it corresponds to spatially distributed magnetic field component, since environmental magnetic noise is known to be broadly distributed throughout the measurement space and to incorporate the higher order tensor decomposition technique of Derksen in Clark as both references are directed to analyzing multidimensional sensor measurements data to gain the advantage of effectively segregating magnetic field signal from magnetic noise thereby improving signal clarity and accuracy of extracted magnetic field information without requiring new hardware.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858