DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn. A first action on the merits of claims 1-18 is as follows.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0143541).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches A multimodal electric and magnetic sensing apparatus to detect neuronal activity in a target, the apparatus comprising: a magnetometer configured to sense a target magnetic field generated by the neuronal activity in the target (Fig 12, TMR sensors 1206); and an electrode configured to contact a surface of the target and sense a target electric field generated by the neuronal activity in the target (Fig 12 EEG sensors 1215), wherein the electrode is coupled to the magnetometer (Fig 12 eeg sensors 1215 are indirectly coupled to TMR sensors 12016 via the EEG-MEG device 1200).
Regarding claim 3, He teaches wherein the electrode comprises an Electroencephalography (EEG) electrode (Fig 12, EEG sensors 1215).
Regarding claim 5, He further teaches an electrode cap (Fig 12 eeg cap 1217); and wherein: the electrode is embedded into the surface of the electrode cap (Fig 12 and [0063] EEG electrodes 1215 are provided “underneath” eeg cap 1217 (i.e., embedded)); and the electrode cap is coupled to the magnetometer and is configured to contact the electrode to the surface of the target (Fig 12, EEG cap 1217 is functionally coupled to MEG magnetometers and contacts skin surface for EEG acquisition).
Regarding claim 10, He teaches A multimodal sensing system to detect neuronal activity in a target, the system comprising: a sensor mount configured to mount a multimodal sensor array (Fig 12 EEG-MEG device 1200); the multimodal sensor array comprising magnetometers and electrodes (TRM sensors 1206 and EEG sensors 1215); the magnetometers configured to sense a target magnetic field generated by the neuronal activity in the target (TRM sensors 1206 are capable of performing claimed function); the electrodes configured to contact a surface of the target and sense a target electric field generated by the neuronal activity in the target (EEG sensors 1215 are capable of performing the claimed function), wherein each of the electrodes is coupled to a corresponding one of the magnetometers (Fig 12 eeg sensors 1215 are indirectly coupled to TMR sensors 12016 via the EEG-MEG device 1200); a controller communicatively coupled to the magnetometers and the electrodes configured to process signaling received from the magnetometers and the electrodes to characterize the target magnetic field and the target electric field (Fig 12 EEG signal cable 1216 and MEG signal capable 1207 communicate downstream to processing circuitry in controller; see processor of Fig 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Oida (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0389400).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1 above, He fails to teach wherein the magnetometer comprises a Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Optically Pumped Magnetometer (OPM).
In related prior art, Oida teaches a similar device comprising: a magnetometer configured to sense a target magnetic field generated by the neuronal activity in the target (Fig 1, optically pumped magnetometers 1A). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magnetometer of He in view of Oida to incorporate the optically pumped magnetometer to arrive at claim 2. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one well-known MEG magnetometer (He, disclosing TMR magnetometers for MEG) for another well-known MEG magnetometer (Oida disclosing OPMs) to yield the predictable result of a magnetometer capable of performing MEG sensing.
Regarding claim 11, He teaches wherein the electrode comprises an Electroencephalography (EEG) electrode (Fig 12, EEG sensors 1215).
He fails to teach wherein the magnetometer comprises a Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Optically Pumped Magnetometer (OPM).
In related prior art, Oida teaches a similar device comprising: a magnetometer configured to sense a target magnetic field generated by the neuronal activity in the target (Fig 1, optically pumped magnetometers 1A). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magnetometer of He in view of Oida to incorporate the optically pumped magnetometer to arrive at claim 11. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one well-known MEG magnetometer (He, disclosing TMR magnetometers for MEG) for another well-known MEG magnetometer (Oida disclosing OPMs) to yield the predictable result of a magnetometer capable of performing MEG sensing.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Jordan (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0015393).
Regarding claim 4, He teaches the device of claim 1.
He fails to teach wherein the electrode is coupled to the magnetometer by at least one of an adhesive, a male/female socket connection, a threaded connection, or hook- and-loop fasteners.
In related prior art, Jordan teaches wherein hook and loop and/or snap fasteners are well-known in the art to couple EEG related materials together ([0054]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EEG-MEG device of He in view of Jordan to incorporate a hook and loop interconnection between the magnetometer sensor array and EEG sensor array such that the electrode is at least indirectly coupled to the magnetometer by at least one of a hook-and-loop fastener to arrive at claim 4. Providing said hook and loop fastener would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of hook and loop fasteners are well-known in the art for providing releasable fastening between components in a system.
Regarding claim 6, He teaches the device of claim 5.
He fails to teach wherein the electrode cap is coupled to the magnetometer by at least one of an adhesive, a male/female socket connection, a threaded connection, or hook-and-loop fasteners.
In related prior art, Jordan teaches wherein hook and loop and/or snap fasteners are well-known in the art to couple EEG related materials together ([0054]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EEG-MEG device of He in view of Jordan to incorporate a hook and loop interconnection between the magnetometer sensor array and the electrode cap such that the electrode cap is at least indirectly coupled to the magnetometer by at least one of a hook-and-loop fastener to arrive at claim 6. Providing said hook and loop fastener would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of hook and loop fasteners are well-known in the art for providing releasable fastening between components in a system.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Kayyali (U.S. PGPub No. 2002/0188216).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, in view of claims 1 and 10 respectively above, He is silent to the specific material selection of the EEG electrode.
In related prior art, Kayyali teaches a similar EEG electrode comprising a gold-plated electrode ([0087] electrodes may be gold plated). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EEG electrodes of He in view of Kayyali to incorporate the gold-plated electrodes to arrive at claims 7 and 14. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of gold-plated EEG electrodes is well-known in the art to yield predictable results therein.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Goldstein (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0235541).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, in view of claims 1 and 10 respectively above, He further teaches wherein the EEG electrode may be wet electrodes ([0063]).
He is silent to the specific material selection of the EEG electrode.
In related prior art, Goldstein teaches a similar EEG electrode comprising a sponge ([0028] sponge for soaking conductive gel). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EEG electrodes of He in view of Goldstein to incorporate the sponge to arrive at claims 8 and 15. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of a sponge within wet EEG electrodes is well-known in the art to yield predictable results therein.
Claim(s) 9 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Bly (U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0076363).
Regarding claims 9 and 16-17, in view of claims 1 and 10 above,
He is silent to the specific shape of the EEG electrode.
In related prior art, Bly teaches a similar electrode may be star shaped among a plurality of other geometric shapes ([0080] star shaped electrode; examiner notes the disclosed shape is capable of inhibiting eddy currents as claimed). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EEG electrodes of He in view of Bly to incorporate the star shape to arrive at claims 9 and 16-17. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it is known in the art that an electrode may comprise a star shape to yield predictable results therein ([0080]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Jordan (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0015393) and Hampstead (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0268266).
Regarding claims 12-13, He teaches the device of claim 10 as stated above.
He fails to teach electrode caps configured to couple the electrodes to the magnetometers; and wherein:the electrodes are embedded into the electrode caps; and each of the electrode caps is coupled to the corresponding one of the magnetometers and are configured to contact the electrodes to the surface of the target; wherein the electrode caps are coupled to the magnetometers by at least one of an adhesive, a male/female socket connection, a threaded connection, or hook-and-loop fasteners.
In related prior art, Hampstead teaches a similar EEG cap comprising a plurality of electrode caps wherein:the electrodes are embedded into the electrode caps (Fig 4 holders 14 function as female snap fit connectors for EEG electrodes to be embedded therein). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EEG cap of He in view of Hampstead to incorporate the EEG cap comprising a plurality of EEG caps for the electrodes to be respectively embedded therein and coupled to the corresponding magnetometers. Doing so would advantageously provide the EEG cap with designated slots for embedding the EEG electrodes therein for precise and repeatable placement of the EEG electrodes on a user’s head.
He/Hampstead fails to teach wherein the electrode caps are coupled to the magnetometers by at least one of an adhesive, a male/female socket connection, a threaded connection, or hook-and-loop fasteners.
In related prior art, Jordan teaches wherein hook and loop and/or snap fasteners are well-known in the art to couple EEG related materials together ([0054]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EEG-MEG device of He in view of Hampstead and Jordan to incorporate a hook and loop interconnection between the magnetometer sensor array and the electrode cap such that the electrode caps are at least indirectly coupled to the magnetometers by at least one of a hook-and-loop fastener to arrive at claims 12-13. Providing said hook and loop fastener would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of hook and loop fasteners are well-known in the art for providing releasable fastening between components in a system.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Ilmoniemi (U.S. Patent No. 4,995,395).
Regarding claim 18, He teaches the device of claim 10 as stated above.
He fails to teach sensor localization coils; and wherein: the sensor mount is configured to mount the multimodal sensor array and the sensor localization coils; the controller is configured to supply electric current to the sensor localization coils; the sensor localization coils are configured to receive the electric current and generate coil magnetic fields; the magnetometers are configured to measure strengths of the coil magnetic fields; the controller is configured to determine locations of the magnetometers based on the measured strengths of the coil magnetic fields and the spatial locations of the sensor localization coils; and the controller is configured to determine locations of the electrodes based on the locations of the magnetometers.
In related prior art, Ilmoniemi teaches sensor localization coils (Fig 1 coils 2) ; and wherein: the sensor mount is configured to mount the multimodal sensor array and the sensor localization coils; the controller is configured to supply electric current to the sensor localization coils (Fig 1 current source 1); the sensor localization coils are configured to receive the electric current and generate coil magnetic fields (Col 3 lines 46-63); the magnetometers are configured to measure strengths of the coil magnetic fields (Col 3 lines 46-63); the controller is configured to determine locations of the magnetometers based on the measured strengths of the coil magnetic fields and the spatial locations of the sensor localization coils (Col 4 lines 60-68 magnetometers positions are determined); and the controller is configured to determine locations of the electrodes based on the locations of the magnetometers (Col 3 lines 46-63 system and method is for localizing eeg electrode positions). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He in view of Ilmoniemi to incorporate the sensor localization coils to localize the locations of the magnetometers and electrodes to arrive at claim 18. Doing so would advantageously enable the system to localize the position of the electrodes in relation to the head (Col 4 lines 51-54; Col 5 lines 36-39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights