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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The current non-final office action corrects typographical errors in the previous non-final office action mailed on 05/15/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Therefore the claims stand rejected.
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.
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 1-2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah, et al., US 20210015427 A1 (disclosed in IDS filed 10/04/2023) in view of Osaka, et al., US 20200315482 A1 (disclosed in IDS filed 10/04/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Shah teaches a fastening system for an optically pumped magnetometer (OPM sensor) (see reproduced fig. 3 of Shah below), comprising:
a support socket for positioning the OPM sensor (sensor clip 210 of fig. 3 and [0034]), comprising:
a base (the clip 210 includes a bottom section that engages with the bracket 209, [0034] stating that “A sensor clip 210 may hold the sensors 203 in place and be designed to mate to the bracket 209 to hold the sensors in position on the two-shell MEG helmet 200”), and
a first housing to house part of the OPM sensor (see housing of the sensor clip 210 that houses the sensors 203 in fig. 3 and [0034]), and
a locking piece for locking the OPM sensor in the support socket ([0034] discloses a bracket 209 and states “A bracket 209 may be designed via 3D printing, described below, or other means of manufacture to fit openings for the sensors 204A,B. A sensor clip 210 may hold the sensors 203 in place and be designed to mate to the bracket 209 to hold the sensors in position on the two-shell MEG helmet 200”) and comprising:
an open-ended base designed to house the base of the socket ([0041] states that “the sensor bracket 209 and clip 210 integrated with the outer shell 202 house the sensor(s) 203. The outer shell 202 is fitted over the inner shell 201 and inner 204A and outer 204B shell openings are aligned. The sensor then can be guided into the sensor opening 204 B in the outer shell 202 and into the sensor opening 204A of the inner shell 201. This cross-sectional view illustrates that the features on the outer shell 202 for holding the sensor is aligned with the features on the inner shell 201, thus allowing the sensor to be pushed in manually or with an actuation mechanism so that it can contact the patient's head”. Also see fig. 7),
a second housing to house part of the OPM sensor (see figs. 3 and 7 for the housing of the bracket 209, [0034] stating that “A bracket 209 may be designed via 3D printing, described below, or other means of manufacture to fit openings for the sensors 204A,B. A sensor clip 210 may hold the sensors 203 in place and be designed to mate to the bracket 209 to hold the sensors in position on the two-shell MEG helmet 200”), and
a removable barrier designed to allow the OPM sensor to pass (bracket 209 includes raised edges or wedges, see fig. 3, which according [0022] allows the OPM sensors to be pushed in manually or with an automation mechanism, so that the sensors can contact the patients head. [0034] also states “ A sensor clip 210 may hold the sensors 203 in place and be designed to mate to the bracket 209 to hold the sensors in position on the two-shell MEG helmet 200” ),
the locking piece being configured to collaborate by force-fitting with the support socket so as to immobilize the OPM sensor in a longitudinal position relative to the socket by wedging ([0047] states that “The brackets 209 and sensor holders 210 were bolted onto it using plastic bolt features. The outer shell maintains the position of the sensors, allowing them to slide and lock onto the inner shell through the outer shell openings 204B into the inner shell openings 204A”. Also paragraph 34 discloses that the sensor clip 210 holds the sensors 203 in place and the sensor clips 210 are designed to mate to the bracket 209 to hold the sensos in position on the two-shell MEG helmet 200. Given fig. 3, reproduced below, shows the bracket 209 and clip 210 with hook-like raised edges, or wedges, it is clearly apparent that the mating is a force-fitting mating scenario in this case).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shah fails to teach that the support socket is configured to be in direct contact with a human head as a mechanical end stop, said support socket.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Osaka teaches a magnetic measuring device that includes a magnetic sensor 3 and multiple plate parts 1, where at least one of the plate parts holds the magnetic sensor, and the plate parts are detachably joined to each other at edges of the plate parts (abstract). The device also includes a tubular part 2 with an internal space that movably supports the magnetic sensor 3 ([0039]). the support socket is configured to be in direct contact with a human head as a mechanical end stop, said support socket ([0051]-[0052] describe that the end of the magnetic sensor 3 passing through the internal space of the tubular part 2 passes through the through hole 11 of the plate part 1 to face the head 50 and is positioned close to or brought into contact with the head 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah, wherein the support socket is configured to be in direct contact with a human head as a mechanical end stop, said support socket, as taught by Osaka, as such modification reduces the measurement errors due to misalignment ([0090]).
Regarding claim 2, Shah in view of Osaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Shah further teaches the support socket being a monobloc component of longitudinal axis made up of the base and of a group of flexible blades defining the first housing, the blades extending longitudinally from the base (the shape of the bracket 209 in reproduced fig. 3 above, shows a monobloc with a base and side blades forming a housing in a longitudinal direction for holding the sensors 203. “A bracket 209 may be designed via 3D printing, described below, or other means of manufacture to fit openings for the sensors 204A,B. A sensor clip 210 may hold the sensors 203 in place and be designed to mate to the bracket 209 to hold the sensors in position on the two-shell MEG helmet 200” according to [0034]. [0035] indicates that the components are flexible).
Regarding claim 4, Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Shah further teaches the base of the support socket being of square or rectangular cross section ([0037] states “Additionally openings for sensors 204B as well as sensor holders 209, 210 are integral in the outer shell 202” and hence at least suggesting that, as fig. 3 shows rectangular shaped holes, the base of the sensor holders 209,210 are rectangular, with the bracket 209 comprising at least two raised edges as depicted in fig. 3.
While Shah does not explicitly state that the sensor clip 210 includes four blades, the sensor clip 210 includes at least 2 clip walls and hence configuring the clip 210 to include four walls/blades is mere duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to duplicate the two walls/blades of the sensor clip 210 into four walls/blades as this would allow the sensors can be manually or with an actuation mechanism pushed through the outer and the inner shells such that the sensors are at the desired proximity to the brain [0022] due to their increased sturdiness.
Regarding claim 11, Shah in view of Osaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Shah further teaches the second housing of the locking piece being designed to hold a cable to which the sensor is connected (see fig. 6 and a cross sectional view in fig. 7 of the cable 203A being held in place by virtue of the bracket 209 mating the sensor clip 210 within the slots/openings 204).
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Osaka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ning, et al., CN 110742607 A (disclosed in IDS filed 10/04/2023).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Shah in view of Osaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Shah in view of Osaka does not teach the blades of the support socket having a strip removed from their center; and the flexible blades of the locking piece having a strip removed from their center.
However, Ning teaches a slide-type brain magnetic cap (see reproduced fig. 1A below and [0012]), retractable card slot comprising a fixed position slot and a telescoping card slot ([0012], see figs. 1(b) and 1(c)) the blades of the support socket having a strip removed from their center (see fig. 1(b) for the cuts in the middle and fig. 1(c) for the cuts disposed in the middle of two opposing walls).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah as modified by Osaka, wherein the blades of the support socket having a strip removed from their center; and the flexible blades of the locking piece having a strip removed from their center, as taught by Ning, providing a simple design that is cost effective that is provides improved measurements with reduced distortions (see [0009]).
PNG
media_image2.png
620
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Shah in view of Osaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Shah further teaches the locking piece being a monobloc component of longitudinal axis made up of the open-ended base and of a group of flexible blades defining the second housing and extending longitudinally from the open-ended base (the shape of the bracket 209 in reproduced fig. 3 above, shows a monobloc with a base and side blades forming a housing in a longitudinal direction for holding the sensors 203. “A bracket 209 may be designed via 3D printing, described below, or other means of manufacture to fit openings for the sensors 204A,B. A sensor clip 210 may hold the sensors 203 in place and be designed to mate to the bracket 209 to hold the sensors in position on the two-shell MEG helmet 200” according to [0034]. [0035] indicates that the components are flexible).,
Shah in view of Osaka fails to teach that the flexible blades each comprising a flexible lateral discontinuity, one of the discontinuities being designed to fit into another one of the discontinuities and to move apart from one another in order to constitute the removable barrier.
However, Ning further teaches the flexible blades each comprising a flexible lateral discontinuity, one of the discontinuities being designed to fit into another one of the discontinuities and to move apart from one another in order to constitute the removable barrier ([0030] describes card slot J is fixed to the card slot I by pressing the sides of the slots).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah, as modified by Osaka wherein the flexible blades each comprising a flexible lateral discontinuity, one of the discontinuities being designed to fit into another one of the discontinuities and to move apart from one another in order to constitute the removable barrier, as taught by Ning, providing a simple design that is cost effective that is provides improved measurements with reduced distortions (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, Shah in view of Osaka and Ning teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Shah further teaches at least part of the blades comprising a grip portion (see fig. 3 for the sensor clips comprising walls for gripping).
Regarding claim 10, Shah in view of Osaka and Ning teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Shah further teaches the base being of square or rectangular cross section with a number of blades being two ([0037] states “Additionally openings for sensors 204B as well as sensor holders 209, 210 are integral in the outer shell 202” and hence at least suggesting that, as fig. 3 shows rectangular shaped holes, the base of the sensor holders 209,210 are rectangular, with the bracket 209 comprising at least two raised edges as depicted in fig. 3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Osaka and Ning, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kells, US 20200229889 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Shah in view of Osaka and Ning teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Shahin view of Osaka and Ning fails to teach at least part of edges of the base of the locking piece having a strip removed from their center.
However, Kells teaches a trajectory array guide system and kit as well as a method for delivering an elongated tool to a target location in the brain of a subject ([0009]), the system comprising a base plate 50 of reproduced fig. 16 below, the based plate including compression slots 55a-d in the side wall of the base plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah, as modified by Osaka and Ning, wherein at least part of edges of the base of the locking piece having a strip removed from their center, as taught by Kells, hence providing precise access to the brain ([0003]).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Osaka and Ning, as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Kells, US 20200229889 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Shah in view of Osaka and Ning teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Shah in view of Osaka and Ning fail to teach at least part of inner edges of the base of the locking piece comprising an inner chamfer.
However, Kells teaches a trajectory array guide system and kit as well as a method for delivering an elongated tool to a target location in the brain of a subject ([0009]), the system comprising a base plate 50 of reproduced fig. 16 below, such that at least part of inner edges of the base of the locking piece comprising an inner chamfer ([0165] states that “The bottom of the center bore of the base plate 50 is provided with a chamfer (not shown) to avoid interference of the catheter with the inner rim of the base plate at significantly large angles relative to the axis which is orthogonal to the plane formed by the bottom of the plate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah, as modified by Osaka and Ning, wherein at least part of edges of the base of the locking piece having a strip removed from their center, as taught by Kells, as such modification would prevent interference of moving parts of the system ([0165]) and hence provide precise access to the brain ([0003]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Osaka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kells, US 20200229889 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Shah in view of Osaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Shah in view of Osaka fails to teach that the support socket and the locking piece being made of a plastic.
However, Kells further teaches that the support socket and the locking piece being made of a plastic, stating in [0145] that components of a trajectory array guide system are made of medical grade materials, including medical grade plastics, medical grade polymers, and medical grade metals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah, as modified by Osaka, wherein at least part of edges of the base of the locking piece having a strip removed from their center, as taught by Kells, hence providing precise access to the brain ([0003]).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Osaka and Ning, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Stephenson, et al., US 20210168539 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Shah in view of Osaka and Ning teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
Shah in view of Osaka and Ning fails to teach wherein the grip portion is outwardly curved.
However, Stephenson teaches a behind-the-ear (“BTE”) module 300 ([0068]) for measuring brain activity ([0069]) and comprising light guides 252,256 of fig. 16 comprising curved grips.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah, as modified by Osaka and Ning, wherein the grip portion is outwardly curved, as taught by Stephenson, to provide a less bulky, rigid packaging of the sensor ([0003]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Osaka and Kells, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Stephenson, et al., US 20210168539 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Shah in view of Osaka and Kells teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Shah fails to teach the support socket and the locking piece being made of polyamide.
However, Stephenson teaches a behind-the-ear (“BTE”) module 300 ([0068]) for measuring brain activity ([0069]) and [0073] states that “the housing 202 is a plastic housing made from polycarbonate or a reinforced plastic such as a glass filled polyarylamide (e.g., IXEF® brand polyarylamide available from Solvay Group of Belgium)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Shah, as modified by Osaka and Kells, wherein the support socket and the locking piece being made of polyamide, as taught by Stephenson, to provide a less bulky, rigid packaging of the sensor ([0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220395208 A1 teaches a magnetoencephalography device based on optical pumping magnetometers bearing against or in contact with a user’s head.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights