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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species readable on claim 5, in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2021/0041512 by Pratt et al., (Pratt hereafter). Regarding claims 1, Pratt teaches a magnetic field detection system to arrange magnetometers, the magnetic field detection system comprising:
a sensor holder (304 in Figs. 3A and 3B) configured to mount the magnetometers (OPM magnetometers 303, see paragraph 0050) proximate to a magnetic field source that generates a magnetic field (generated by magnetic field generator 162 in Fig. 1A; ** see comments below);
the magnetometers configured to measure the magnetic field in multiple directions,
wherein a first portion of the magnetometers measures a normal component of the magnetic field
and a first tangential component of the magnetic field, and a second portion of the
magnetometers measures the normal component of the magnetic field and a second tangential
component of the magnetic field (** see comments below); and
the sensor holder configured to distribute the first portion of the magnetometers and the second portion of the magnetometers, so the tangential components measured by neighboring ones of the magnetometers mounted to the sensor holder are different. (As shown in Figure 3A, the sensor holder is capable of mounting several magnetometers 303 across the surface of the holder 304. The magnetometers mounted to the sides are oriented at a different angle compared to the magnetometers mounted on top, and thus, the tangential components measured are different).
** The examiner notes that claim 1 as recited, requires the presence of a sensor holder, but it doesn’t necessitate the presence of magnetometers. The claim only requires the ability of the sensor holder to mount magnetometers. That is, the claim doesn’t recite that the system comprises magnetometers, it only recites a system that comprises a sensor holder. Thus, as long as the prior art anticipates a holder, and the holder is capable of mounting magnetometers, the prior art anticipates the claim. The examiner suggests positively reciting the system “comprises” magnetometers.
Regarding claim 15, Pratt teaches in paragraph 0050 (line 7), the holder (304) is a helmet.
Regarding claim 19, Pratt teaches in paragraph 0050 (line 7), the holder (304) is a blanket (wrap).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2013/0150702 by Hokari, (Hokari hereafter).
Regarding claim 20, Hokari teaches a method to arrange magnetometers, the method comprising:
mounting magnetometers (optical pumping type sensors 11a+11b in Fig. 2 or 10) on a sensor holder (3a+3b+3c);
distributing the magnetometers on the sensor holder so tangential field components
measured by adjacent ones of the magnetometers are different (for example, the magnetometers 11a positioned on the left are exposed to tangential field components that are different to those which sensors 11a position on top are exposed to);
placing the sensor holder on a magnetic field source (the holder is placed on the human patient, whose heart is the magnetic field generation source; see paragraph 0009) that generates a magnetic field to position the magnetometers proximate to the magnetic field source;
utilizing a first portion of the magnetometers to measure a normal component of the
magnetic field and a first tangential component of the magnetic field; and utilizing a second portion of the magnetometers to measure the normal component of the magnetic field and a second tangential component of the magnetic field (the magnetometers are optical pumping type, and include alkali metal atom particles 15 within it, which align themselves according to the magnetic field they are exposed to, including the normal components of the magnetic field. By exposed to a detection light “L1” passing through the sensor, a detector detects the rotation angle of the particles to thereby measure the y-axis direction magnetic field. This process is performed for every magnetic sensor, including two adjacent sensors which the examiner interprets as the first and second portions of the sensors. See Figure 8 and paragraph 0042).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2022/0395208 by Le Prado, (Le Prado hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Le Prado teaches a magnetic field detection system to arrange magnetometers, the magnetic field detection system comprising:
a sensor holder (130) configured to mount the magnetometers (110) proximate to a magnetic field source that generates a magnetic field (** see comments below);
the magnetometers configured to measure the magnetic field in multiple directions,
wherein a first portion of the magnetometers measures a normal component of the magnetic field
and a first tangential component of the magnetic field, and a second portion of the
magnetometers measures the normal component of the magnetic field and a second tangential
component of the magnetic field (** see comments below); and
the sensor holder configured to distribute the first portion of the magnetometers and the second portion of the magnetometers, so the tangential components measured by neighboring ones of the magnetometers mounted to the sensor holder are different (the sensor holder is a support helmet. The magnetometers mounted to the sides are oriented at a different angle compared to the magnetometers mounted on top, and thus, the tangential components measured are different).
** The examiner notes that claim 1 as recited, requires the presence of a sensor holder, but it doesn’t necessitate the presence of magnetometers. The claim only requires the ability of the sensor holder to mount magnetometers. That is, the claim doesn’t recite that the system comprises magnetometers, it only recites a system that comprises a sensor holder. Thus, as long as the prior art anticipates a holder, and the holder is capable of mounting magnetometers, the prior art anticipates the claim. The examiner suggests positively reciting the system “comprises” magnetometers.
As to claims 3 and 4, the claims appear to describe functionality of the magnetometers that are mounted on the claimed system. As mentioned above, in regards to claim 1, the claim doesn’t necessitate the presence of magnetometers, only a sensor holder capable of mounting them proximate a magnetic field source. Because Le Prado teaches a sensor holder as recited, and the sensor holder is capable of mounting magnetometers proximate a magnetic field source, Le Prado anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Le Prado teaches the sensor holder comprises a magnetoencephalography (MEG) sensor holder (see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claims 15, Le Prado teaches the holder is a helmet (paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 1- 5, 11-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2021/0369165 by Alford et al., (Alford hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Alford teaches a magnetic field detection system to arrange magnetometers, the magnetic field detection system comprising:
a sensor holder (405 in Fig. 4) configured to mount the magnetometers (OPM modules 403, see paragraph 0065 and Abstract) proximate to a magnetic field source that generates a magnetic field (** see comments below);
the magnetometers configured to measure the magnetic field in multiple directions,
wherein a first portion of the magnetometers measures a normal component of the magnetic field
and a first tangential component of the magnetic field, and a second portion of the
magnetometers measures the normal component of the magnetic field and a second tangential
component of the magnetic field (** see comments below); and
the sensor holder configured to distribute the first portion of the magnetometers and the second portion of the magnetometers, so the tangential components measured by neighboring ones of the magnetometers mounted to the sensor holder are different. As shown in Figure 4, the sensor holder is capable of mounting several magnetometers 403 across the surface of the holder. Because the magnetic fields measured by the magnetometers is not perfectly uniform across the surface of the holder, the tangential components measured by two adjacent magnetometers is not perfectly equal in magnitude.
** The examiner notes that claim 1 as recited, requires the presence of a sensor holder, but it doesn’t necessitate the presence of magnetometers. The claim only requires the ability of the sensor holder to mount magnetometers. That is, the claim doesn’t recite that the system comprises magnetometers, it only recites a system that comprises a sensor holder. Thus, as long as the prior art anticipates a holder, and the holder is capable of mounting magnetometers, the prior art anticipates the claim. The examiner suggests positively reciting the system “comprises” magnetometers.
As to claim 2, Alford shows in Figure 4, a first portion of the magnetometers and a second portion of the magnetometers (OPM modules 403), are evenly distributed on the sensor holder (evenly distributed in a 4 x 4 array).
As to claims 3 and 4, the claims appear to describe functionality of the magnetometers that are mounted on the claimed system. As mentioned above, in regards to claim 1, the claim doesn’t necessitate the presence of magnetometers, only a sensor holder capable of mounting them proximate a magnetic field source. Because Alford teaches a sensor holder as recited, and the sensor holder is capable of mounting magnetometers proximate a magnetic field source, Alford anticipates the claim.
As to claim 5, Alford teaches the magnetometers (403, see paragraph 0030) are atomic magnetometers (Optically Pump Magnetometers also called atomic because they use the quantum properties of atoms).
As to claim 11, Alford teaches the sensor holder comprises a magnetocardiography (MCG) sensor holder (405. See paragraph 0065).
As to claims 12-14, the examiner notes the claims appear to describe the intended use of the claimed holder. For example, claim 12 recites the sensor holder comprises a Magnetomyography (MMG) sensor holder. Claim 13 recites the sensor holder comprises a Magnetogastrography (MGG) sensor holder. Claim 14 recites the sensor holder comprises a Magnetoneurography (MNG) sensor holder.
The examiner notes that, as recited, the terms magnetomyography, magnetogastrography and magnetoneurography that precedes the words “sensor holder” do not appear to differentiate from the prior art. Neither the claims nor the Specification describes additional structure that would allow the “magnetomyography”, “magnetogastrography” or “magnetoneurography” holders in claims 12-14 to operate differently compared to the holder recited in claim 1. In their current form, the terms “magnetomyography”, “magnetogastrography” or “magnetoneurography” are labels, insofar as the claim itself doesn’t recite additional structure that would differentiate them from the sensor holder recited in claim 1.
For example, paragraph 0026 in the Specification reads:
[0026] FIG. 1 illustrates magnetic field detection system 100 to arrange magnetometers. Magnetic field detection system 100 performs operations like detecting magnetic fields and relating the detected magnetic fields to a magnetic field source. For example, magnetic field detection system may be representative of an MEG system, Magnetocardiography (MCG) system, Magnetogastrography (MGG) system, Magnetomyography (MMG) system, Magnetoneurography (MNG) system, and/or another type of magnetic field detection system. System 100 comprises magnetic field source 101, sensor holder 111, magnetometers 121, cabling 131, and controller 141. Magnetic field source 101 generates a target magnetic field. Magnetic field source 101 may comprise any magnetic field source including non-biological magnetic field sources. In other examples, magnetic field detection system 100 may differ. System 100 may include fewer or additional components than those illustrated in FIG. 1. Likewise, the illustrated components of system 100 may include fewer or additional components, assets, or connections than shown.
Neither the claims nor the Specification describes additional structure that would allow the holders in claims 12-14 to operate differently compared to the holder recited in claim 1. what differentiates a sensor holder as recited in claim 1, from a sensor that comprises a Magnetomyography (MMG), Magnetogastrography (MGG) or a Magnetoneurography (MNG) sensor holder. It appears the claims are intended to describe the intended use of the claimed sensor holder. That is, the claims describe the intended use of the sensor holder in a Magnetomyography, Magnetogastrography, or a Magnetoneurography procedure. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Alford teaches all structural elements as recited, Alford anticipates the claim.
As to claim 18, Alford teaches the sensor holder comprises a vest (see paragraph 00665, line 6).
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2016/0338621 by Kanchan et al., (Kanchan hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Kanchan teaches a magnetic field detection system to arrange magnetometers, the magnetic field detection system comprising:
a sensor holder (right arm sleeve 10 + left arm sleeve 10), see paragraph 0007, line 6) configured to mount magnetometers (sensor 11 in each portion of the holder corresponding to each arm; see paragraph 0007, last five lines) proximate to a magnetic field source (earth’s magnetic field) that generates a magnetic field (** see comments below);
the magnetometers configured to measure the magnetic field in multiple directions,
wherein a first portion of the magnetometers measures a normal component of the magnetic field
and a first tangential component of the magnetic field, and a second portion of the
magnetometers measures the normal component of the magnetic field and a second tangential
component of the magnetic field (** see comments below); and
the sensor holder configured to distribute the first portion of the magnetometers and the second portion of the magnetometers, so the tangential components measured by neighboring ones of the magnetometers mounted to the sensor holder are different. As shown in Figure 6, the sensor holder is capable of mounting magnetometers at two locations of the holder. Because the magnetic fields measured by the magnetometers is not perfectly uniform across the surface of the holder, the tangential components measured by two adjacent magnetometers is not perfectly equal in magnitude.
** The examiner notes that claim 1 as recited, requires the presence of a sensor holder, but it doesn’t necessitate the presence of magnetometers. The claim only requires the ability of the sensor holder to mount magnetometers. That is, the claim doesn’t recite that the system comprises magnetometers, it only recites a system that comprises a sensor holder. Thus, as long as the prior art anticipates a holder, and the holder is capable of mounting magnetometers, the prior art anticipates the claim. The examiner suggests positively reciting the system “comprises” magnetometers.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt.
Regarding claim 16, although Pratt mentions the sensor holder (304) is a cap (paragraph 0050, line 7), Pratt doesn’t explicitly mention the cap is “flexible”.
Official Notice is taken to the fact that is widely known in the art to use flexible material in sensor holding caps such as Pratt’s, so as to accommodate a range of head circumferences while keeping the sensors as close to the head surface as possible. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to make Pratt’s cap “flexible” in order to allow the cap to be used by patients of different sizes.
Conclusion
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 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights