DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 7 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/773,654.
Regarding claim 1, all elements recited are substantially included in claim 12 of the conflicting application in the manner shown below:
Instant application 18/765,392
Copending application 18/773,654
Claim 1: An optically pumped magnetometer comprising:
a cell configured to be filled with alkali metal vapor;
a pump light incidence unit configured to cause pump light for pumping alkali metal atoms constituting the alkali metal vapor to be incident on a plurality of sensitivity regions inside the cell in a first direction;
a probe light incidence unit configured to cause probe light for detecting change in electron spins in a pumped state of the alkali metal atoms to be incident on the plurality of sensitivity regions in a direction intersecting the first direction;
bias magnetic field coils configured to apply a bias magnetic field in the first direction to the inside of the cell and determine a resonance frequency of the electron spins;
an electron spin tilting unit configured to tilt a rotation axis direction of the electron spins in a direction perpendicular to the first direction;
an optical sensor configured to detect the probe light having passed through the sensitivity regions; and
a magnetic field measuring unit configured to measure magnetic field strengths related to the sensitivity regions based on an output of the optical sensor,
wherein the bias magnetic field coils respectively apply a plurality of the bias magnetic fields having strengths different from each other to the plurality of corresponding sensitivity regions.
Claim 1: An optically pumped magnetometer comprising:
a cell configured to be filled with alkali metal vapor;
a pump light incidence unit configured to cause pump light for pumping alkali metal atoms constituting the alkali metal vapor to be incident on a sensitivity region inside the cell in a first direction;
a probe light incidence unit configured to cause probe light for detecting change in electron spins in a pumped state of the alkali metal atoms to be incident on the sensitivity region in a direction intersecting the first direction;
a bias magnetic field coil configured to apply a bias magnetic field in the first direction to the inside of the cell and determine a resonance frequency of the electron spins;
a gradient correction coil configured to correct a gradient of the bias magnetic field applied through the bias magnetic field coil;
an electron spin tilting unit configured to tilt a rotation axis direction of the electron spins in a direction perpendicular to the first direction;
an optical sensor configured to detect the probe light having passed through the sensitivity region; and
a magnetic field measuring unit configured to measure a magnetic field strength related to the sensitivity region based on an output of the optical sensor.
Claim 12. The optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1,
wherein there are two or more of the sensitivity regions, and
the magnetic field measuring unit measures the magnetic field strength based on a difference between outputs of the optical sensor corresponding to the two adjacent sensitivity regions.
Conflicting claim 12 includes all elements recited in instant claim 1 except for reciting a plurality of bias magnetic field coils that apply a plurality of the bias magnetic fields having strengths different from each other to the plurality of corresponding sensitivity regions (conflicting claim 12 recites a single bias magnetic field coil). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the application was effectively filed, to include an additional bias magnetic field coil in order to independently address the two or more sensitivity regions recited in conflicting claim 12. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have provided for the plurality of bias magnetic field to apply unique strength bias to the sensitivity regions, in order to allow the difference in output between the sensitivity regions recited in conflicting claim 12.
As to claims 7 and 8 and 10, the claims are rejected over the same grounds over claims 10, 11 and 13 respectively. See below:
Application 18/765,392
Copending Application 18/773,654
Claim 7: The optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1,
wherein the electron spin tilting unit radiates RF signals having the same frequencies as the resonance frequencies.
Claim 10: The optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1,
wherein the electron spin tilting unit radiates an RF signal having the same frequency as the resonance frequency.
Claim 8: The optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1,
wherein the electron spin tilting unit radiates pulsed light.
Claim 11: The optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1,
wherein the electron spin tilting unit radiates pulsed light.
Claim 10: A magnetoencephalograph comprising:
the optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1 configured to be provided in a manner of being able to be disposed around the head of a test object and measure a strength of a magnetic field emitted from the test object.
Claim 13: A magnetoencephalograph comprising:
the optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1 configured to be provided in a manner of being able to be disposed around the head of a test object and measure a strength of a magnetic field emitted from the test object.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- a pump light incidence unit configured to cause pump light for pumping alkali metal atoms constituting the alkali metal vapor to be incident on a plurality of sensitivity regions inside the cell in a first direction (claim 1, line 3)
- a probe light incidence unit configured to cause probe light for detecting change in electron spins in a pumped state of the alkali metal atoms to be incident on the plurality of sensitivity regions in a direction intersecting the first direction (claim 1, line 7)
- an electron spin tilting unit configured to tilt a rotation axis direction of the electron spins in a direction perpendicular to the first direction (claim 1, 14)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification defines the limitations as follows:
- a pump light incidence unit: “The pump laser 4 and the first optical system 6 constitute a pump light incidence unit causing rays of the pump light PLa to PLd to be incident on the sensitivity regions ARa to ARd in the negative y axis direction.” (paragraph 0041, lines 5-8). “As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, the first optical system 6 is constituted to include a lens 21, a ½ wavelength plate 22, polarization beam splitters 23a, 23b, and 23c, ½ wavelength plates 24a and 24b, a total reflection mirror 25, and the ¼ wavelength plates 27a, 27b, 27c, and 27d.” (paragraph 0036, lines 2-6).
Thus, the limitation is being interpreted to cover a pump laser and an optical system that includes a lens, a wavelength plates, polarization beam splitters, and a total reflection mirror, and equivalents thereof.
- a probe light incidence unit: “The probe laser 5 and the second optical system 7 constitute a probe light incidence unit causing rays of the probe light QL to be incident on the sensitivity regions ARa to ARd in the x axis direction” (paragraph 0045, lines 6-9). “The second optical system 7 is constituted to include a lens 35, a ½ wavelength plate 36, a polarization beam splitter 38, and total reflection mirrors 37a to 37c” (paragraph 0044, lines 2-4).
Thus, the limitation is being interpreted to cover a laser probe and an optical system that includes a lens, wavelength plates, a polarization beam splitter, and total reflection mirrors, and equivalents thereof.
- an electron spin tilting unit (claim 1, 14): “a tilting coil (electron spin tilting unit) 14” (paragraph 0030, lines 4-5). Thus, the limitation is being interpreted to cover a tilting coil, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2014/0159718 A1 by Larsen et al., (Larsen hereafter) in view of the US Patent US 7,145,333 by Romalis et al., (Romalis hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Larsen teaches in Figure 3, an optically pumped magnetometer comprising:
a cell configured to be filled with alkali metal vapor (102; “As an example, the alkali metal 14 can be rubidium (Rb) vapor” – paragraph 0013, lines 4-6),
a pump light incidence unit configured to cause pump light for pumping alkali metal atoms constituting the alkali metal vapor to be incident on a plurality of sensitivity regions inside the cell in a first direction (Fig. 3, pump laser: “a pump laser configured to generate an optical pump beam configured to stimulate the alkali metal particles” - paragraph 0005, lines 4-6);
a probe light incidence unit configured to cause probe light for detecting change in electron spins in a pumped state of the alkali metal atoms to be incident on the plurality of sensitivity regions in a direction intersecting the first direction (Fig. 3, probe beam source 122. “The magnetometer system 10 also includes a probe laser 28 configured to generate a probe beam OPRB that is directed through the sensor cell 12, such as approximately orthogonally with respect to the pump beam” – paragraph 0014, lines 4-8);
bias magnetic field unit configured to apply a bias magnetic field in the first direction to the inside of the cell and determine a resonance frequency of the electron spins (x-axis magnetic field generator 114 and y-axis magnetic field generator 116. “X-axis magnetic field generator 114 that generates a magnetic field Bx, a Y-axis magnetic field generator 116 that generates a magnetic field By,” – paragraph 0025, lines 4-8);
an electron spin tilting unit configured to tilt a rotation axis direction of the electron spins in a direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 3, tilting coil within z-axis magnetic field generator 118, tilting the electron spins in a direction that is perpendicular to the y and x directions);
an optical sensor configured to detect the probe light having passed through the sensitivity regions (Faraday rotation detector 124: “The polarization rotation detector 124 can provide a signal PRE that can be associated with the Faraday rotation of the probe beam O.sub.DET to a signal processor 128.” – paragraph 0027. “the detection system is configured to detect the precession of the alkali metal particles based on a Faraday rotation of the linearly-polarized optical signal in each of the EPR detection and the NMR detection” – see paragraph 3-7); and
a magnetic field measuring unit configured to measure magnetic field strengths related to the sensitivity regions based on an output of the optical sensor (unit 128. “the signal processor 128 includes a magnetic field controller 130 that is configured to provide a feedback signal FDBK to the magnetic field system 112. The feedback signal FDBK includes feedback components FDBK.sub.X and FDBK.sub.Y that command the respective X- and Y-axis magnetic field generators 114 and 116 to adjust the respective magnetic fields B.sub.X and B.sub.Y to substantially mitigate the Faraday rotation of the probe beam O.sub.DET in a feedback manner based on setting the components of the net magnetic field in the X/Y plane to approximately zero to align the net magnetic field to the Z-axis 120” – see paragraph 27, lines 4-15),
wherein the bias magnetic field coils respectively apply a plurality of the bias magnetic fields having strengths different from each other to the plurality of corresponding sensitivity regions (as both bias magnetic field generating units 114 and 116 apply magnetic fields at different regions, the magnetic fields varying depending on feedback from the magnetic field controller 130).
Larsen substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the bias magnetic field unit comprise coils. The use of coils for the purpose of inducing magnetic fields is well known in the art. For example, Romalis teaches in Figure 1, a magnetometer comprising magnetic inducing means (Fig. 1, unit 120) that comprise coils: “ In many embodiments, the magnetizing means include induction coils through which an electrical current flows” – paragraph 13, lines 35-37)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of coils as magnetic field generating means as taught by Romalis, in the device/system/method of Larsen, in order to gain the advantage of easily control the strength of the magnetic fields via current flow regulation, which is critical for the feedback function in Larsen's system.
As to claim 2, Larsen teaches the plurality of sensitivity regions include at least a first sensitivity region and a second sensitivity region (the cell includes an infinite amount of “regions” including for example, the region adjacent to unit 116 and the unit adjacent to 114), and the bias magnetic field coils include, a first coil corresponding to the first sensitivity region, and a second coil corresponding to the second sensitivity (as mentioned in regards to the rejection of claim 1, Romalis teaches the use of coils. Larsen teaches the magnetic field generators 114 and 116 generate magnetic fields directed towards the entire cell, including the first and second regions).
As to claim 9, Larsen teaches the magnetic field measuring unit (128) measures the magnetic field strengths based on a difference between outputs of the optical sensor corresponding to the two adjacent sensitivity regions (“the signal processor 128 includes a magnetic field controller 130 that is configured to provide a feedback signal FDBK to the magnetic field system 112. The feedback signal FDBK includes feedback components FDBK.sub.X and FDBK.sub.Y that command the respective X- and Y-axis magnetic field generators 114 and 116 to adjust the respective magnetic fields B.sub.X and B.sub.Y to substantially mitigate the Faraday rotation of the probe beam O.sub.DET in a feedback manner based on setting the components of the net magnetic field in the X/Y plane to approximately zero to align the net magnetic field to the Z-axis 120”- see paragraph 27, lines 4-15. That is, the feedback is based on the outputs of the optical sensor which correspond to all of the sensitivity regions within the cell).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 2 comprising a substrate configured to be provided with the first coil and the second coil, wherein a passing hole allowing the pump light to pass therethrough is formed in the substrate, in combination with all other elements recited.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 2, wherein the first sensitivity region is present in an end portion of the cell, and the bias magnetic field coils include an extra-cell coil disposed away from the cell when viewed in the first direction and adjacent to the first coil, in combination with all other elements recited.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensitivity regions include a first sensitivity region, a second sensitivity region adjacent to the first sensitivity region, a third sensitivity region adjacent to the second sensitivity region, and a fourth sensitivity region adjacent to the third sensitivity region, and the bias magnetic field coils include a pair of first coils disposed with the first sensitivity region sandwiched therebetween in the first direction and formed with a first number of windings in a first rotation direction, a pair of second coils disposed with the second sensitivity region sandwiched therebetween in the first direction and formed with a second number of windings in the first rotation direction, a pair of third coils disposed with the third sensitivity region sandwiched therebetween in the first direction and formed with the second number of windings in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction, and a pair of fourth coils disposed with the fourth sensitivity region sandwiched therebetween in the first direction and formed with the first number of windings in the second rotation direction, in combination with all other elements recited.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the optically pumped magnetometer according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensitivity regions include first to Nth sensitivity regions (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2), the bias magnetic field coils respectively apply first to Nth bias magnetic fields to the first to Nth sensitivity regions and have first to Nth resonance frequencies as the resonance frequencies of the first to Nth sensitivity regions, and the magnetic field measuring unit acquires a mixed waveform of free induction decay including components of the first to Nth resonance frequencies based on an output of the optical sensor, filters the mixed waveform through a band pass filter, acquires first to Nth waveforms of free induction decay in respective bands of the first to Nth resonance frequencies, derives respective frequencies of the first to Nth waveforms, and obtains magnetic field strengths related to the first to Nth sensitivity regions on the basis of the respectively derived frequencies of the first to Nth waveforms, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 12,174,020 by Lee et al.
- The US Patent US 11,555,872 by Gerginov.
- The US Patent US 9,869,371 by Hovde.
- The US Patent US 9,726,733 by Smith et al.
- The US Patent US 8,427,146 by Nagasaka.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 February 20, 2026