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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 set forth in the amendment submitted 5/28/2026 form the basis of the present examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7-11, filed 5/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al. (Hereinafter, “Hong”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150091556 A1 in view of Nagasaki et al. (Hereinafter, “Nagasaki”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20110133733 A1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 8-11, of the remarks, filed on 5/28/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al. (Hereinafter, “Hong”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150091556 A1 in view of Nagasaki et al. (Hereinafter, “Nagasaki”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20110133733 A1, that “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references, taken individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the features of amended independent claim 1, particularly with respect to the features of "a first coil that applies an excitation AC magnetic field to an object to be measured including a magnetic material without magnetically saturating the magnetic material of the object such that a magnetization change of the magnetic material exhibits a linear response," and "a second magnetic sensor that detects the secondary detection AC magnetic field to generate a second detection signal, the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field such that the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component."
……………..
Hong's excitation coil 330 (allegedly corresponding to the claimed first coil) "receiv[es] amplified alternating currents and generat[es] an electromagnetic field", whereby "a magnetization signal [is] generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material" (see Hong, Paragraph [0044]) (Remarks-Page 8). ………
Therefore, Applicant submits that Hong requires the operating condition that is opposite to that of the present application, and Hong fails to teach the features of "a first coil that applies an excitation AC magnetic field to an object to be measured including a magnetic material without magnetically saturating the magnetic material of the object such that a magnetization change of the magnetic material exhibits a linear response."
…..
Hong's element 360 (in combination with Hong's detection coil 340 allegedly corresponding to the claimed second magnetic sensor) is described as "a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340" (see Id., Paragraph [0044]). The spectrum analyzer 360 "obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform" and "can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation" (see Id., Paragraph [0047]). Thus, Hong's element 360 is a signal analysis instrument that receives an electrical signal from the detection coil 340 and performs mathematical analysis on that electrical signal. Hong's element 360 is not a magnetic sensor, and combining Hong's detection coil 340 with Hong's spectrum analyzer 360 does not make the spectrum analyzer 360 a magnetic sensor (Remarks-Page 9).
…………
As discussed above, Hong's system operates in the opposite manner from the claimed magnetic field measurement device. In Hong, the magnetic material is magnetically saturated to produce a nonlinear magnetization signal containing harmonics, and Hong is silent regarding magnetic saturation of any sensor element. In the claimed magnetic field measurement device, the magnetic material is not magnetically saturated such that the magnetization change exhibits a linear response, and the second magnetic sensor is magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field to produce the non-sine wave component.
Accordingly, Hong fails to disclose or suggest the features of "a first coil that applies an excitation AC magnetic field to an object to be measured including a magnetic material without magnetically saturating the magnetic material of the object such that a magnetization change of the magnetic material exhibits a linear response," and "a second magnetic sensor that detects the secondary detection AC magnetic field to generate a second detection signal, the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field such that the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Nagasaki cited in combination with Hong does not remedy the deficiencies of Hong, and the Office does not suggest otherwise at this stage.
Based on the foregoing, the applied combination of the cited references, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest each and every feature of amended independent claim 1, which is believed to be in condition for allowance. Amended independent claims 15 and 19, although differing in scope, recites subject matter similar to that discussed above with respect to (Remarks-Page 10) amended independent claim 1. The dependent claims depend from their respective base claims and add further limitations thereto. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are therefore respectfully requested (Remarks-Page 11).”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 8-11, of the remarks, filed on 5/28/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al. (Hereinafter, “Hong”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150091556 A1 in view of Nagasaki et al. (Hereinafter, “Nagasaki”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20110133733 A1, as applied to the Final office Action mailed on 2/10/2026 have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Applicant argues that, “Hong does not teach that a first magnetic sensor that detects a primary detection AC magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a primary detection signal” which is not persuasive. Examiner in the rejection mentioned that Hong teaches the excitation coil detects a primary detection AC magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal. However, Hong does not teach that a first magnetic sensor detects a primary detection AC magnetic field. Hong teaches, “FIG. 3, the apparatus for analyzing materials comprises a generator 310 generating alternating current, a current amplifier 320 amplifying alternating currents generated by the generator 310, an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field (Paragraph [0044] Line 1-6). Magnetization signal generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9).” Therefore, Hong discloses the excitation coil detects a primary detection AC magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal. Nagasaki is introduced only to include a magnetic sensor to generate a first detection signal. Hong already discloses the limitation of detecting a primary detection AC magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal by a first coil. Hong only does not teach about the first magnetic sensor. Therefore, Nagasaki is introduced only to include a magnetic sensor to detect a primary detection AC magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal.
Therefore, applicant’s argument that, “Hong fails to teach the features of "a first coil that applies an excitation AC magnetic field to an object to be measured including a magnetic material” is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “In the claimed magnetic field measurement device, the magnetic material is not magnetically saturated such that the magnetization change exhibits a linear response, and the second magnetic sensor is magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field to produce the non-sine wave component” which is not persuasive. The limitation, “the magnetic material is not magnetically saturated such that the magnetization change exhibits a linear response, and the second magnetic sensor is magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field to produce the non-sine wave component” is the manner of use of the magnetic material which is not required by the claim. Claim recites a device and magnetic material is one element of the device however the manner of use of the magnetic material will not differentiate the present application from prior art reference Hong.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hong fails to teach the features of "a magnetic material without magnetically saturating the magnetic material of the object such that a magnetization change of the magnetic material exhibits a linear response”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With respect to the intended use of the magnetic material, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function,(In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.)
Applicant argues that Hong does not disclose the amended limitation, “the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field such that the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component.” However, applicant has amended the claim which necessitates a new ground of rejection. JP 6844075 B1 is applied to meet at least the amended limitation of independent claim 1. Similar for independent claims 15 and 19. Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al. (Hereinafter, “Hong”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150091556 A1 in view of Nagasaki et al. (Hereinafter, “Nagasaki”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20110133733 A1 and further in view of KATAGIRI et al. (Hereinafter, “Katagiri”) in The Patent Application Publication Number JP 6844075 B1 (Date Published 2021-03-17), as set forth below. Applicant argument is moot in view of newly applied combination of references. See the rejection set forth below.
For expedite prosecution Applicant is invited to call to discuss the present rejection also if any further clarification needed and to discuss any possible amendment to overcome the references and to correct the manner of use limitation to make the claims allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG et al. (Hereinafter, “Hong”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20150091556 A1 in view of Nagasaki et al. (Hereinafter, “Nagasaki”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20110133733 A1 and further in view of KATAGIRI et al. (Hereinafter, “Katagiri”) in The Patent Application Publication Number JP 6844075 B1 (Date Published 2021-03-17).
Regarding claim 1. Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device (a method and an apparatus for analyzing behavior of a magnetic material inside a magnetic field; Paragraph [0003] Line 2-3; FIG. 3 is a circuit diagram illustrating an apparatus for analyzing materials according to one embodiment of the present invention; Paragraph [0022] Line 1-3) comprising:
a first coil [330] (an excitation coil 330 as the first coil) that applies an excitation AC magnetic field to an object to be measured (FIG. 3, the apparatus for analyzing materials comprises a generator 310 generating alternating current, a current amplifier 320 amplifying alternating currents generated by the generator 310, an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 1-6) including a magnetic material to make a magnetization change of the magnetic material exhibit linear response (a magnetization signal generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9; Magnetization response is the linear response) and detects a primary detection AC magnetic field (an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 4-6) caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal (a magnetization signal as the primary detection signal) (a magnetization signal generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9);
With respect to the intended use of the magnetic material, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation “a magnetic material without magnetically saturating the magnetic material of the object such that to make a magnetization change of the magnetic exhibits a linear response” is not required by the claim);
a second coil [340] (a detection coil 340 as the second coil) that generates a secondary detection AC magnetic field based on the first detection signal (a detection coil 340 detecting a magnetization signal (as the secondary detection signal) generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9); and
a second magnetic sensor [340 in combination with the amplifier 350] (spectrum analyzer as the second magnetic field sensor as it detects and analyze the secondary detection signal) that detects the secondary detection AC magnetic field to generate a second detection signal including a non-sine wave component (a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340; Paragraph [0044] Line 9-13; The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9; Spectrum analyzer analyzes harmonic component which is the non-sine wave component; Sinusoidal Waveforms: A sinusoidal waveform is a smooth, repetitive oscillation that can be described by a sine or cosine function. It has a single frequency. Non-Sinusoidal Waveforms: Many real-world waveforms, like those found in electronic circuits, are not perfect sine waves. These waveforms can be complex, but they can be broken down into a series of sinusoidal components. Harmonics: These sinusoidal components that make up a non-sinusoidal waveform are called harmonics. The frequency of each harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency of the original waveform; https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1098US1098&oq=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyBggDECEYCtIBCTE0NzE3ajBqMagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
With respect to the intended use of the magnetic material, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation “the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field such that the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component” is not required by the claim).
Hong teaches that the excitation coil as the first coil detects a primary detection AC magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal.
However, Hong does not teach that a first magnetic sensor that detects a primary detection magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal; the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract), wherein
a first magnetic sensor [110] (magneto impedance device 110 as the first magnetic sensor as it detects the magnetic field) that detects a primary detection magnetic field caused due to the magnetization change of the magnetic material to generate a first detection signal (The sensor section 100 includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure. The magneto-impedance device 110 detects a magnetic field in the longitudinal direction. In this embodiment, the magneto-impedance device 110 detects a magnetic field in the vertical direction (arrow direction) in FIG. 2. In this embodiment, the length of the magneto-impedance device 110 in the longitudinal direction is about 4 mm; Paragraph [0069] Line 1-8). The purpose of doing so is to provide high linearity and no hysteresis, to implement a magnetic field sensor device reduced in size and weight as compared with an induction coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the excitation coil disclosed by Hong in view of the magneto impedance device disclosed by Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to include a magneto impedance device as the magnetic sensor provides high linearity and no hysteresis (Paragraph [0072]), implements a magnetic field sensor device reduced in size and weight as compared with an induction coil (Paragraph [0079]).
The combination of Hong and Nagasaki fails to teach the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field.
Katagiri teaches a magnetic particle imaging apparatus; Paragraph [001] Line 1; FIG. 5 is a diagram showing the configuration of the magnetic particle imaging apparatus; Paragraph [0035] Line 1-2),
wherein the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field (The magnetic fine particle imaging device generates a zero magnetic field region by generating magnetic fields in opposite directions, and applies an AC magnetic field using a solenoid coil having a size capable of including the object to be inspected and the receiving coil. Here, outside the zero magnetic field region, even if an alternating magnetic field is applied, the magnetic flux density does not change as long as the magnetic flux density of the magnetic fine particles is saturated. On the other hand, in the zero magnetic field region, the influence of magnetization by the static magnetic field is small, and when an AC magnetic field is applied to the magnetic fine particles, magnetization fluctuation occurs; Paragraph [0003] Line 1-7). The purpose of doing so is to causes a change in the magnetic flux interlinking the detection coil, to acquire odd-order harmonics of an alternating magnetic field to be applied from the characteristics of the magnetic susceptibility curve of magnetic fine particles by synchronous detection and discriminating them from external noise.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Nagasaki in view of Katagiri to include the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field, because Katagiri teaches to include the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field causes a change in the magnetic flux interlinking the detection coil (Paragraph [0005]), acquires odd-order harmonics of an alternating magnetic field to be applied from the characteristics of the magnetic susceptibility curve of magnetic fine particles by synchronous detection and discriminating them from external noise (Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hong and Katagiri fails to teach a magnetic field measurement device, further comprising a third coil that cancels the excitation AC magnetic field applied to the first magnetic sensor.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract), further comprising
a third coil (The sensor section 100 may include environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 that generate a correction magnetic field that cancels the environmental magnetic field input to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device 110. In this embodiment, each of the environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 is formed by a coil that is wound around the core section 130 or 131; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-8) that cancels the excitation magnetic field applied to the first magnetic sensor (The magnetic field sensor device 1 may include an adjustment means that controls the environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 so that the observational data falls within the desired range; Paragraph [0081] Line 1-4). The purpose of doing so is to measure the magnetic field signal with high accuracy by causing the environmental magnetic field cancellation means to cancel the environmental magnetic field so that the environmental magnetic field level due to terrestrial magnetism corresponds to the center of the detection range, to provide the observational data fall within the desired range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Katagiri by introducing a third coil as disclosed by Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to include a third coil measures the magnetic field signal with high accuracy by causing the environmental magnetic field cancellation means to cancel the environmental magnetic field so that the environmental magnetic field level due to terrestrial magnetism corresponds to the center of the detection range (Paragraph [0085]), provides the observational data fall within the desired range (Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
further comprising a signal processing circuit [360] that detects a harmonic component included in the secondary detection signal (The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9).
Regarding claim 4, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein the second coil [340] is arranged outside the first coil [330] (Figure 3 shows the second coil [340] is arranged outside the first coil [330]).
Regarding claim 5, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein the second magnetic sensor [340+350] is arranged outside the first coil [330] (Figure 3 shows wherein the second magnetic sensor is arranged outside the first coil [330]).
Regarding claim 6, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein a distance between the first coil [330] and the second magnetic sensor [340+350] is larger than a distance between the first coil and the object to be measured (From Figure 3 it can be seen a distance between the first coil [330] and the second magnetic sensor [340+350] is larger than a distance between the first coil and the object to be measured).
Hong discloses the c1aimed invention except for exact distance between the first coil and the second magnetic sensor is larger than a distance between the first coil and the object to be measure. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a distance between the first coil and the second magnetic sensor is larger than a distance between the first coil and the object to be measured since Applicant has not disclosed that the distance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the combined disclosure of Hong and Nagasaki and Katagiri.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hong and Katagiri fails to teach a magnetic field measurement device, wherein the object to be measured is arranged between the first coil and the third coil.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract),
wherein the object [110] (magneto-impedance device as the object) to be measured is arranged between the first coil [111b/11a] and the third coil [111c] (FIG. 5 is a circuit diagram illustrating an example of the driver circuit 120. In the example of FIG. 5, the driver circuit 120 mainly includes a Colpitts oscillation circuit 121 that includes the magneto-impedance device 110. The Colpitts oscillation circuit 121 includes coils 111a, 111b, and 111c (i.e., the measurement coil 111), a transistor 112, a resistor 113, capacitors 114 and 115, and a variable resistor 116; Paragraph [0071] Line 1-8; Figure 5 shows the object [110] (magneto-impedance device as the object) to be measured is arranged between the first coil [111b/11a] and the third coil [111c]). The purpose of doing so is to implement a driver circuit having high linearity and no hysteresis and to guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Katagiri in view of Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to arrange the object to be measured between the first coil and the third coil implements a driver circuit having high linearity and no hysteresis (Paragraph [0072]) and guides a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device (Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hong and Katagiri fails to teach a magnetic field measurement device, wherein the second coil is isolated from the second magnetic sensor.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract),
wherein the second coil is isolated from the second magnetic sensor (The sensor section 100 includes rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131. The core sections 130 and 131 are disposed on either side of the magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure in the longitudinal direction. The core sections 130 and 131 guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device 110. The core sections 130 and 131 may be formed of a high-permeability material (e.g., mu-metal or ferrite); Paragraph [0073] Line 1-8; Mu-metal is a magnet ferrite is a magnetic ceramic material, classified as ferrimagnetic as function as a shield therefore isolate the second coil from the magnetic sensor). The purpose of doing so is to increase the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Katagiri in view of Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to isolate the second coil from the second magnetic sensor increases the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300 (Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hong and Katagiri fails to teach a magnetic field measurement device, further comprising first and second magnets arranged such that the object to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract),
further comprising first and second magnets [130, 131] in Figure 3 arranged such that the object [110] to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets [130, 131] (The sensor section 100 includes rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131. The core sections 130 and 131 are disposed on either side of the magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure in the longitudinal direction. The core sections 130 and 131 guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device 110. The core sections 130 and 131 may be formed of a high-permeability material (e.g., mu-metal or ferrite); Paragraph [0073] Line 1-8; Mu-metal is a magnet ferrite is a magnetic ceramic material, classified as ferrimagnetic). The purpose of doing so is to increase the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Katagiri in view of Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to arrange first and second magnets such that the object to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets increases the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300 (Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 10, Hong in view of Nagasaki teaches a magnetic field measurement device, further
comprising an amplifier circuit [320] connected between the first magnetic sensor and the second coil [340] (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein the amplifier circuit [320] is configured to supply a detection AC current to the second coil based on the first detection signal (With reference to FIG. 3, the apparatus for analyzing materials comprises a generator 310 generating alternating current, a current amplifier 320 amplifying alternating currents generated by the generator 310, an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein the first detection signal includes a first component originating from the primary detection AC magnetic field and a second component originating from the excitation AC magnetic field that has not been canceled completely (Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Hong below shows the first detection signal includes a first component originating from the primary detection AC magnetic field and a second component originating from the excitation AC magnetic field that has not been canceled completely).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Hong
Regarding claim 13, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component corresponding to the first component and a sine wave component corresponding to the second component (Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Hong above shows the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component corresponding to the first component and a sine wave component corresponding to the second component).
Regarding claim 14, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
further comprising a signal processing circuit [360] (spectrum analyzer 360 as the signal processing circuit) configured to extract a harmonic component of the non-sine wave component (a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340; Paragraph [0044] Line 9-13; The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9; Spectrum analyzer analyzes harmonic component which is the non-sine wave component; Sinusoidal Waveforms: A sinusoidal waveform is a smooth, repetitive oscillation that can be described by a sine or cosine function. It has a single frequency. Non-Sinusoidal Waveforms: Many real-world waveforms, like those found in electronic circuits, are not perfect sine waves. These waveforms can be complex, but they can be broken down into a series of sinusoidal components. Harmonics: These sinusoidal components that make up a non-sinusoidal waveform are called harmonics. The frequency of each harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency of the original waveform; https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1098US1098&oq=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyBggDECEYCtIBCTE0NzE3ajBqMagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Regarding claim 15. Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device (a method and an apparatus for analyzing behavior of a magnetic material inside a magnetic field; Paragraph [0003] Line 2-3; FIG. 3 is a circuit diagram illustrating an apparatus for analyzing materials according to one embodiment of the present invention; Paragraph [0022] Line 1-3) comprising:
a first coil [330] (an excitation coil 330 as the first coil) configured to apply an excitation AC magnetic field to an object to be measured (FIG. 3, the apparatus for analyzing materials comprises a generator 310 generating alternating current, a current amplifier 320 amplifying alternating currents generated by the generator 310, an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 1-6) and detects a primary detection AC magnetic field (an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 4-6) from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal (a magnetization signal as the primary detection signal) (a magnetization signal generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9);
With respect to the intended use of the magnetic material, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation “a magnetic material without magnetically saturating the magnetic material of the object such that to make a magnetization change of the magnetic exhibits a linear response” is not required by the claim);
an amplifier circuit [320] configured to generate a detection AC current based on the first detection signal (With reference to FIG. 3, the apparatus for analyzing materials comprises a generator 310 generating alternating current, a current amplifier 320 amplifying alternating currents generated by the generator 310, an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 1-6);
a second coil [340] (a detection coil 340 as the second coil) configured to generate a secondary detection AC magnetic field based on the detection AC current (a detection coil 340 detecting a magnetization signal (as the secondary detection signal) generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9); and
a second magnetic sensor [340 in combination with the amplifier 350] (spectrum analyzer as the second magnetic field sensor as it detects and analyze the secondary detection signal) configured to detect the secondary detection AC magnetic field to generate a second detection signal (a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340; Paragraph [0044] Line 9-13; The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9) includes a non-sine wave component (a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340; Paragraph [0044] Line 9-13; The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9; Spectrum analyzer analyzes harmonic component which is the non-sine wave component; Sinusoidal Waveforms: A sinusoidal waveform is a smooth, repetitive oscillation that can be described by a sine or cosine function. It has a single frequency. Non-Sinusoidal Waveforms: Many real-world waveforms, like those found in electronic circuits, are not perfect sine waves. These waveforms can be complex, but they can be broken down into a series of sinusoidal components. Harmonics: These sinusoidal components that make up a non-sinusoidal waveform are called harmonics. The frequency of each harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency of the original waveform; https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1098US1098&oq=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyBggDECEYCtIBCTE0NzE3ajBqMagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
With respect to the intended use of the magnetic material, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation “the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field such that the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component” is not required by the claim).
Hong teaches that the excitation coil as the first coil detect a primary detection AC magnetic field from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal.
However, Hong does not teach that a first magnetic sensor that detect a primary detection AC magnetic field from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal; the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract), wherein
a first magnetic sensor [110] (magneto impedance device 110 as the first magnetic sensor as it detects the magnetic field) that d detect a primary detection AC magnetic field from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal (The sensor section 100 includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure. The magneto-impedance device 110 detects a magnetic field in the longitudinal direction. In this embodiment, the magneto-impedance device 110 detects a magnetic field in the vertical direction (arrow direction) in FIG. 2. In this embodiment, the length of the magneto-impedance device 110 in the longitudinal direction is about 4 mm; Paragraph [0069] Line 1-8). The purpose of doing so is to provide high linearity and no hysteresis, to implement a magnetic field sensor device reduced in size and weight as compared with an induction coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the excitation coil disclosed by Hong in view of the magneto impedance device disclosed by Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to include a magneto impedance device as the magnetic sensor provides high linearity and no hysteresis (Paragraph [0072]), implements a magnetic field sensor device reduced in size and weight as compared with an induction coil (Paragraph [0079]).
The combination of Hong and Nagasaki fails to teach the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field.
Katagiri teaches a magnetic particle imaging apparatus; Paragraph [001] Line 1; FIG. 5 is a diagram showing the configuration of the magnetic particle imaging apparatus; Paragraph [0035] Line 1-2),
wherein the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field (The magnetic fine particle imaging device generates a zero magnetic field region by generating magnetic fields in opposite directions, and applies an AC magnetic field using a solenoid coil having a size capable of including the object to be inspected and the receiving coil. Here, outside the zero magnetic field region, even if an alternating magnetic field is applied, the magnetic flux density does not change as long as the magnetic flux density of the magnetic fine particles is saturated. On the other hand, in the zero magnetic field region, the influence of magnetization by the static magnetic field is small, and when an AC magnetic field is applied to the magnetic fine particles, magnetization fluctuation occurs; Paragraph [0003] Line 1-7). The purpose of doing so is to causes a change in the magnetic flux interlinking the detection coil, to acquire odd-order harmonics of an alternating magnetic field to be applied from the characteristics of the magnetic susceptibility curve of magnetic fine particles by synchronous detection and discriminating them from external noise.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Nagasaki in view of Katagiri to include the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field, because Katagiri teaches to include the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field causes a change in the magnetic flux interlinking the detection coil (Paragraph [0005]), acquires odd-order harmonics of an alternating magnetic field to be applied from the characteristics of the magnetic susceptibility curve of magnetic fine particles by synchronous detection and discriminating them from external noise (Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein the first detection signal includes a first component originating from the primary detection AC magnetic field and a second component originating from the excitation AC magnetic field that has not been canceled completely (Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Hong above shows the first detection signal includes a first component originating from the primary detection AC magnetic field and a second component originating from the excitation AC magnetic field that has not been canceled completely).
The combination of Hong and Katagiri fails to teach a magnetic field measurement device, further comprising a third coil configured to cancel the excitation AC magnetic field applied to the first magnetic sensor.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract), further comprising
a third coil (The sensor section 100 may include environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 that generate a correction magnetic field that cancels the environmental magnetic field input to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device 110. In this embodiment, each of the environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 is formed by a coil that is wound around the core section 130 or 131; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-8) configured to cancel the excitation AC magnetic field applied to the first magnetic sensor (The magnetic field sensor device 1 may include an adjustment means that controls the environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 so that the observational data falls within the desired range; Paragraph [0081] Line 1-4). The purpose of doing so is to measure the magnetic field signal with high accuracy by causing the environmental magnetic field cancellation means to cancel the environmental magnetic field so that the environmental magnetic field level due to terrestrial magnetism corresponds to the center of the detection range, to provide the observational data fall within the desired range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Katagiri by introducing a third coil as disclosed by Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to include a third coil measures the magnetic field signal with high accuracy by causing the environmental magnetic field cancellation means to cancel the environmental magnetic field so that the environmental magnetic field level due to terrestrial magnetism corresponds to the center of the detection range (Paragraph [0085]), provides the observational data fall within the desired range (Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 17, Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device,
wherein the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component corresponding to the first component and a sine wave component corresponding to the second component (Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Hong above shows the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component corresponding to the first component and a sine wave component corresponding to the second component).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hong and Katagiri fails to teach a magnetic field measurement device, further comprising first and second magnets arranged such that the object to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets, wherein the first and second magnets are arranged such that S-poles or N-poles of the first and second magnets face each other so as to substantially null a strength of a gradient DC magnetic field applied to the object to be measured.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract),
further comprising first and second magnets [130, 131] in Figure 3 arranged such that the object [110] to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets [130, 131] (The sensor section 100 includes rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131. The core sections 130 and 131 are disposed on either side of the magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure in the longitudinal direction. The core sections 130 and 131 guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device 110. The core sections 130 and 131 may be formed of a high-permeability material (e.g., mu-metal or ferrite); Paragraph [0073] Line 1-8; Mu-metal is a magnet ferrite is a magnetic ceramic material, classified as ferrimagnetic). The purpose of doing so is to increase the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Katagiri in view of Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to arrange first and second magnets such that the object to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets increases the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300 (Paragraph [0076]).
The combination of Hong and Nagasaki teaches first and second magnets. However, Hong and Nagasaki do not teach that the first and second magnets are arranged such that S-poles or N-poles of the first and second magnets face each other so as to substantially null a strength of a gradient DC magnetic field applied to the object to be measured.
With respect to the intended use of the first and second magnets, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function,(In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation is not required by the claim.
Regarding claim 19. Hong teaches a magnetic field measurement device (a method and an apparatus for analyzing behavior of a magnetic material inside a magnetic field; Paragraph [0003] Line 2-3; FIG. 3 is a circuit diagram illustrating an apparatus for analyzing materials according to one embodiment of the present invention; Paragraph [0022] Line 1-3) comprising:
a first coil [330] (an excitation coil 330 as the first coil) configured to apply an excitation AC magnetic field to an object to be measured (FIG. 3, the apparatus for analyzing materials comprises a generator 310 generating alternating current, a current amplifier 320 amplifying alternating currents generated by the generator 310, an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 1-6) and detects a primary detection AC magnetic field (an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 4-6) from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal (a magnetization signal as the primary detection signal) (a magnetization signal generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9);
With respect to the intended use of the magnetic material, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation “a magnetic material without magnetically saturating the magnetic material of the object such that to make a magnetization change of the magnetic exhibits a linear response” is not required by the claim);
an amplifier circuit [320] configured to generate a detection AC current based on the first detection signal (With reference to FIG. 3, the apparatus for analyzing materials comprises a generator 310 generating alternating current, a current amplifier 320 amplifying alternating currents generated by the generator 310, an excitation coil 330 receiving amplified alternating currents and generating an electromagnetic field; Paragraph [0044] Line 1-6);
a second coil [340] (a detection coil 340 as the second coil) configured to generate a secondary detection AC magnetic field based on the detection AC current (a detection coil 340 detecting a magnetization signal (as the secondary detection signal) generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9); and
a second magnetic sensor [340 in combination with the amplifier 350] (spectrum analyzer as the second magnetic field sensor as it detects and analyze the secondary detection signal) configured to detect the secondary detection AC magnetic field to generate a second detection signal (a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340; Paragraph [0044] Line 9-13; The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9);
With respect to the intended use of the magnetic material, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation “the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field” is not required by the claim).
a signal processing circuit [360] (spectrum analyzer 360 as the signal processing circuit) configured to detect the second detection signal (a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340; Paragraph [0044] Line 9-13; The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9);
wherein a strength of the excitation AC magnetic field has a value making the magnetization change of the magnetic material exhibit nonlinear response (a magnetization signal generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated by the excitation coil is applied to the measurement target material; Paragraph [0044] Line 6-9; a magnetization signal as the primary detection signal) (a magnetization signal generated from a measurement target material as the electromagnetic field generated);
wherein the first detection signal includes a first component originating from the primary detection AC magnetic field and a second component originating from the excitation AC magnetic field that has not been canceled completely by the third coil (Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Hong above shows the first detection signal includes a first component originating from the primary detection AC magnetic field and a second component originating from the excitation AC magnetic field that has not been canceled completely);
wherein the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component corresponding to the first component and a sine wave component corresponding to the second component (Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Hong above shows the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component corresponding to the first component and a sine wave component corresponding to the second component); and
wherein the signal processing circuit [360] (spectrum analyzer 360 as the signal processing circuit) configured to extract a harmonic component of the non-sine wave component (a spectrum analyzer 360 for analyzing the type of the measurement target material based on harmonic patterns obtained from the magnetization signal detected by the detection coil 340; Paragraph [0044] Line 9-13; The spectrum analyzer 360 obtains the pattern of harmonic peaks, which actually is a frequency data obtained by discretizing the magnetization signal, by using the Fourier transform. The spectrum analyzer 360 can analyze the type of the measurement target material by comparing an RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value obtained through the pattern of harmonic peaks or coefficients calculated by converting the pattern of harmonic peaks into a high-order polynomial equation; Paragraph [0047] Line 1-9; Spectrum analyzer analyzes harmonic component which is the non-sine wave component; Sinusoidal Waveforms: A sinusoidal waveform is a smooth, repetitive oscillation that can be described by a sine or cosine function. It has a single frequency. Non-Sinusoidal Waveforms: Many real-world waveforms, like those found in electronic circuits, are not perfect sine waves. These waveforms can be complex, but they can be broken down into a series of sinusoidal components. Harmonics: These sinusoidal components that make up a non-sinusoidal waveform are called harmonics. The frequency of each harmonic is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency of the original waveform; https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1098US1098&oq=harmonic+componet+is+sinusoidal+or+non+sinusoidfal&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyBggDECEYCtIBCTE0NzE3ajBqMagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Hong teaches that the excitation coil as the first coil detect a primary detection AC magnetic field from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal.
However, Hong does not teach that a first magnetic sensor that detect a primary detection AC magnetic field from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal; a third coil configured to cancel the excitation AC magnetic field applied to the first magnetic sensor; the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract), wherein
a first magnetic sensor [110] (magneto impedance device 110 as the first magnetic sensor as it detects the magnetic field) that d detect a primary detection AC magnetic field from the object to be measured to generate a first detection signal (The sensor section 100 includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure. The magneto-impedance device 110 detects a magnetic field in the longitudinal direction. In this embodiment, the magneto-impedance device 110 detects a magnetic field in the vertical direction (arrow direction) in FIG. 2. In this embodiment, the length of the magneto-impedance device 110 in the longitudinal direction is about 4 mm; Paragraph [0069] Line 1-8);
a third coil (The sensor section 100 may include environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 that generate a correction magnetic field that cancels the environmental magnetic field input to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device 110. In this embodiment, each of the environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 is formed by a coil that is wound around the core section 130 or 131; Paragraph [0080] Line 1-8) configured to cancel the excitation AC magnetic field applied to the first magnetic sensor (The magnetic field sensor device 1 may include an adjustment means that controls the environmental magnetic field cancellation means 140 and 141 so that the observational data falls within the desired range; Paragraph [0081] Line 1-4). The purpose of doing so is to provide high linearity and no hysteresis, to implement a magnetic field sensor device reduced in size and weight as compared with an induction coil, to measure the magnetic field signal with high accuracy by causing the environmental magnetic field cancellation means to cancel the environmental magnetic field so that the environmental magnetic field level due to terrestrial magnetism corresponds to the center of the detection range, to provide the observational data fall within the desired range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the excitation coil disclosed by Hong in view of the magneto impedance device disclosed by Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to include a magneto impedance device as the magnetic sensor and to introducing a third coil measures the magnetic field signal with high accuracy by causing the environmental magnetic field cancellation means to cancel the environmental magnetic field so that the environmental magnetic field level due to terrestrial magnetism corresponds to the center of the detection range (Paragraph [0085]), provides the observational data fall within the desired range (Paragraph [0081]), provides high linearity and no hysteresis (Paragraph [0072]), implements a magnetic field sensor device reduced in size and weight as compared with an induction coil (Paragraph [0079]).
The combination of Hong and Nagasaki fails to teach the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field.
Katagiri teaches a magnetic particle imaging apparatus; Paragraph [001] Line 1; FIG. 5 is a diagram showing the configuration of the magnetic particle imaging apparatus; Paragraph [0035] Line 1-2),
wherein the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field (The magnetic fine particle imaging device generates a zero magnetic field region by generating magnetic fields in opposite directions, and applies an AC magnetic field using a solenoid coil having a size capable of including the object to be inspected and the receiving coil. Here, outside the zero magnetic field region, even if an alternating magnetic field is applied, the magnetic flux density does not change as long as the magnetic flux density of the magnetic fine particles is saturated. On the other hand, in the zero magnetic field region, the influence of magnetization by the static magnetic field is small, and when an AC magnetic field is applied to the magnetic fine particles, magnetization fluctuation occurs; Paragraph [0003] Line 1-7). The purpose of doing so is to causes a change in the magnetic flux interlinking the detection coil, to acquire odd-order harmonics of an alternating magnetic field to be applied from the characteristics of the magnetic susceptibility curve of magnetic fine particles by synchronous detection and discriminating them from external noise.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Nagasaki in view of Katagiri to include the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field, because Katagiri teaches to include the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field causes a change in the magnetic flux interlinking the detection coil (Paragraph [0005]), acquires odd-order harmonics of an alternating magnetic field to be applied from the characteristics of the magnetic susceptibility curve of magnetic fine particles by synchronous detection and discriminating them from external noise (Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hong and Katagiri fails to teach a magnetic field measurement device, further comprising first and second magnets arranged such that the object to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets, wherein the first and second magnets are arranged such that S-poles or N-poles of the first and second magnets face each other so as to substantially null a strength of a gradient DC magnetic field applied to the object to be measured.
Nagasaki teaches A magnetic field sensor device 1 includes a sensor section 100 that includes a magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure, and rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131 that guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure in a longitudinal direction with respect to the magnetic amorphous structure (Abstract),
further comprising first and second magnets [130, 131] in Figure 3 arranged such that the object [110] to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets [130, 131] (The sensor section 100 includes rod-shaped core sections 130 and 131. The core sections 130 and 131 are disposed on either side of the magneto-impedance device 110 having a magnetic amorphous structure in the longitudinal direction. The core sections 130 and 131 guide a magnetic field to the magnetic amorphous structure of the magneto-impedance device 110. The core sections 130 and 131 may be formed of a high-permeability material (e.g., mu-metal or ferrite); Paragraph [0073] Line 1-8; Mu-metal is a magnet ferrite is a magnetic ceramic material, classified as ferrimagnetic). The purpose of doing so is to increase the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hong and Katagiri in view of Nagasaki, because Nagasaki teaches to arrange first and second magnets such that the object to be measured is sandwiched between the first and second magnets increases the sensitivity of the magnetic field sensor by a factor of about 300 (Paragraph [0076]).
The combination of Hong and Nagasaki and Katagiri teaches first and second magnets. However, Hong and Nagasaki and Katagiri do not teach that the first and second magnets are arranged such that S-poles or N-poles of the first and second magnets face each other so as to substantially null a strength of a gradient DC magnetic field applied to the object to be measured.
With respect to the intended use of the first and second magnets, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function,(In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) Therefore, the limitation is not required by the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Goodwill et al. (US 20110089942 A1) discloses, “IMPROVED TECHNIQUES FOR MAGNETIC PARTICLE IMAGING- [0001] The present invention relates generally to methods and devices for volume imaging. More specifically, it relates to improved techniques for magnetic particle imaging. [0039] An MPI apparatus according to an embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 1A. NdFeB ring magnets 106, 107 create a static inhomogeneous magnetic gradient field having a field-free region located near the center of imaging bore 108. Ring magnets 106, 107 have a mean diameter of 7.62 cm and a center-to-center separation of 6.85 cm. The magnetic field is approximately linear axially down the bore, with a gradient of dB/dz=4.5 T/m. Coronal gradients are dB/dx=dB/dy=2.6 T/m. Water-cooled excitation solenoid 114 generates a dynamic magnetic field that is superimposed on the static field and can excite magnetic particles in the imaging bore 108. In addition, intermodulation solenoid 102 generates a dynamic magnetic field that is also superimposed on the static field. Magnetic shield 100 passively isolates the AC excitation solenoids 102 and 114 from interaction with other components to reduce unwanted heating and signal interference. Signals from magnetic particles located in the imaging bore 108 are received by concentric gradiometer receive coil 112. The mechanical frame for the apparatus includes G10 plate 110 for mounting ring magnets 106, 107 and aluminum bolt 104. [0040] FIG. 1B is a perspective cut-away view of a device according to an embodiment of the invention. The device contains NdFeB permanent magnets 120, 122 that produce an inhomogeneous field with a field-free point in the center of the bore 124, water cooled electromagnet coils (not shown) positioned inside bore 124 to generate a radio-frequency excitation magnetic field along the longitudinal z-axis and water cooled electromagnet coils 128, 130, 132 to generate low-frequency excitation magnetic fields along the x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis, respectively. The x, y, and z axis electromagnets also generate a scanning magnetic field to move the field-free-point. The permanent magnets produce a z-gradient of 8 T/m and x-y-gradient of 4 T/m. In one implementation, the inner diameter is 3 inches and the outer diameter is 12 inches, and the interior is potted with epoxy to eliminate vibration. The RF excitation coils (not shown) positioned inside bore 124 are driven by a 750 Watt continuous power amplifier. The LF coils are driven by a 800 Amp peak-to-peak amplifier-However Goodwill does not disclose a second magnetic sensor that detects the secondary detection AC magnetic field to
generate a second detection, the second magnetic sensor being magnetically saturated by the secondary detection AC magnetic field such that the second detection signal includes a non-sine wave component.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights