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 08/12/2025 see page 6 and 7 with respect to USC 102 rejection of claim 1 and USC 103 rejection of claim 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fu fails to discloses the claimed at least on first sensor and second sensor that are different, and therefor Fu cannot anticipate the claims. Applicant further argues that Fu teaches “two substantially identical optically integrated detectors” for calibration ( [0064]) and that this teaching would prevent a person of ordinary skill in the art from modifying Fu to include a second, different type sensor such as vapor cell or SQUID magnetometer as taught by Kawabata.
The Examiner agrees that Fu, standing alone does not expressly discloses the second sensor recited in the claims, therefore USC 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, Applicants argument is not persuasive against USC 103 rejection over Fu in view of Kuwabata, for the reason set forth below.
Fu describes the use of two substantially identical detectors merely as one embodiment of a calibration approach. Nowhere does Fu state, suggest of imply that the detectors must be identical, nor does Fu criticize or discourage the use of dissimilar detectors. As such, Fu does not teach away from utilizing different sensor types. A reference teaches away only when it clearly express that the claimed combination would be inoperative, undesirable, or contrary to the reference’s stated purpose (see In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Further Kawabata explicitly teaches that the use of multiple, different magnetometer types (SQUID and (atomic/vapor cell sensors)) provides improved accuracy by compensating for environmental and background magnetic fields (Kawabata [0030]). The combination of Fu’s NV based magnetometer with Kawabata’s background field sensor represents predictable variation motivated by the shared goal of improving magnetic field measurement accuracy, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Applicants’ assertion that Fu’s “identical detectors” embodiment precludes or renders obvious modification dissimilar sensors is therefore not persuasive, because Fu’s disclosure does not limit its scope to identical detectors not discourage alternatives. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that combining Fu’s high sensitivity NV magnetometers with a secondary, dissimilar magnetometer as taught by Kawabata would yield predictable and beneficial results providing both local field sensitivity and environmental compensation.
Therefore, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for claim 1 and claims 2, 3-10, as they are directly or indirectly based on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 1-2 and 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (U.S. Publication 20110062957) in view of Kawabata (U.S. Publication 20070120563).
Regarding claim 1, Fu teaches a sensor unit for detecting a magnetic field (fig. 4 “The detection of external magnetic fields by a nitrogen-vacancy center is accomplished using two unique properties of the nitrogen-vacancy center”[0018]),comprising:
a light source configured to generate excitation light (fig. 4 (435)),
at least one first sensor (fig. 4 (415 in 405)) configured to determine a measurement signal of an object to be measured (“to detect extremely small numbers of analytes” [0017])
wherein the at least one first sensor is configured of the incident light (105,” [0027] fig. 1B 103, 105 to 147) and thus emits fluorescence
wherein the NV center emits fluorescence in response to the excitation light from the light source (Emitted light (115) having a characteristic wavelength and intensity is produced by the nitrogen-vacancy centers as a result of excitation of the NV centers (147) by the incident light (105) [0024]),
Fu does not explicitly teach and wherein the second sensor is a gas vapor cell magnetometer or a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer.
However, Kawabata in a relevant rat teaching an optically integrated magnetic biosensor includes an optically detected magnetic resonance teaches and wherein the second sensor is a gas vapor cell magnetometer or a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer (fig. 2 (2) [0029-30]).
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 magnetometer of Kawabata in Fu to gain the advantage of extremely high sensitivity system yielding highly accurate magnetic measurements [Kawabata [0011]].
PNG
media_image1.png
470
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
636
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
797
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fu as modified further teaches wherein the at least one first sensor is configured to be arranged in close proximity to the [[an]] object to be measured (fig. 4 (420 by 415)).
Regarding claim 4, Fu as modified further teaches further comprising: and the at least one first sensor,pass the excitation light from the light source to the at least one first sensor
Regarding claim 6, Fu as modified by Kawabata further teaches further comprising:including a control unit configured to determine sensor from at least one first sensor and a second sensorfrom
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 processing system of Kawabata in Fu to gain the advantage of advance signal processing to attain faster system performance [Kawabata [0011]].
Regarding claim 7, Fu as modified further teaches further comprising: a photodetector configured to receive the emitted fluorescence (“the optical waveguides (250) may provide a smaller and more robust method of transmitting excitation light to the detectors (205) and sensing the emitted light generated by the detectors (205)” [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Fu as modified further teaches wherein the sensor unit configured to separate the excitation light .
Claims 5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (U.S. Publication 20110062957) in view of Fludger (U.S. Publication 20140376905).
Fu discloses the claimed invention above except:
Regarding claim 5, Fu further teaches an optically integrated magnetic sensor system comprising magnetic detectors integrated with optical structures [0035-38], using two substantially identical optically integrated magnetic detectors to correct for or calibrate out stray magnetic fields [0064], the two detectors are positioned relatively closed together so that both detectors sensing the same field and calibration is performed by differencing the measurement between two detectors so that the effect of the stray magnetic field be cancelled out.
Fu does not exility teach the second sensor is fastened to an optical fiber, the sensors are positioned at a defined distance along the optical fiber, wherein the measurement signal is calibrated or corrected based on the background magnetic field and the defined distance.
However, Fludger discloses a fiber length measurement system, with first optical transceiver and second optical transceiver connected to fiber optic cable forming a defined optical path [0016-23] fig. 1. The system measures a round-trip time and determines a half round trip distance to establish the defined distance between transceivers, also synchronizes clocks and performs calibration/correction of measurement data based on this defined distance [0023, 0026-34]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fu’s dual magnetic sensor system to incorporate the fiber-based configuration taught by Fludger so that Fu’s first and second magnetic detectors are fastened to a common optical fiber at a defined distance from one another providing a mechanical stable and optically aligned structure that allows precise and reproducible calibration between two sensors.
Regarding claim 9, Fu as modified further teaches a method for detecting a magnetic field with a sensor unit, comprising [[a]] the at least one first sensor and [[a]] the second sensor ([0064] recites two detectors to detect stray magnetic field (“stray magnetic fields may include the earth's magnetic field” [0063]) where only one detector senses the magnetically tagged molecules in the test fluid [0064])
Regarding claim 10,at least one first sensor in close proximity to the [[an]] object to be measured; [[,]] measuring the [[a]] background magnetic field using the second sensor; [[,]] determining the background magnetic field at aat least one first sensor; [[,]] and calibrating [[a]]the measurement signal of the at least one first sensor based on the background magnetic field and the defined distance (“The electrical signal is analyzed to determine if changes in the emitted optical intensity indicate the presence of an exterior magnetic field. In some circumstances the electrical signal may be calibrated to reduce the effects of stray optical and magnetic energy” [0072]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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