DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8-18 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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: “signal processing unit” in claims 1, 9-10 and “position reference unit” in claim 9.
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.
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
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.
Claims 1, 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang [Recording Brain Activities In Unshielded Earth’s Field With Optically Pumped Atomic Magnetometers, Science Advances Research Article, 2020].
As per claim 1, Zhang teaches a sensor unit for detecting brain current-induced magnetic fields (Zhang Fig 1), comprising:
a unit Zhang Fig 1 items OPM1 and OPM2, page 6 RHS abstract “an atomic magnetic gradiometer”)
located in an unshielded environment (Zhang Fig 1 “Unshielded MEG system using OPMs”) and
wherein each gradiometer unit has two magnetometers which are arranged at a fixed distance from each other (Zhang Fig 1 items OPM1 and OPM2, page 2 RHS “The distance between the top and the bottom OPM sensors is 6 cm”), and
further wherein each magnetometer has a sensor medium (Zhang page 6 RHS “cesium vapor cell” is a sensor medium) and
is configured to generate an output signal based on a strength of the brain current-induced magnetic fields and background fields at a measurement location by reading a spin resonance in the sensor medium (Zhang Fig 1, page 2 LHS “atomic magnetic gradiometer, we successfully observe the alpha rhythm signal related to .. (AEF) signal” See Fig 2, page 6 LHS “The magnetometer is based on a pump-probe scheme to polarize the cesium atomic spins and monitor the Larmor precession… The amplitude of the pump beam is modulated with an acoustic-optical modulator at the Larmor frequency”),
at least one excitation light source configured to radiate light into the sensor media of the two magnetometers (Zhang page 6 LHS “The amplitude of the pump beam is modulated with an acoustic-optical modulator at the Larmor frequency”), and
at least one signal processing unit (Zhang page 6 LHS “lock-in amplifier”, “data acquisition card (National Instruments, USB6363)”, and other items to generate display corresponds to processing unit)
configured to determine a magnetic field gradient at the gradiometer unit as a difference of the output signals of the two magnetometers of the gradiometer unit (Zhang page 6 “amplitude-frequency characteristics of the gradiometer by demodulating the difference of the two OPM sensors’ readouts at the frequency of the applied sinusoidal signal”) and
to detect a time course of the magnetic field gradient (Zhang Fig 3 Fig. 3 the measured AEF signals is a time course in time domain),
wherein the background fields include Earth's magnetic field (Implied since it is unshielded measurement as per the experiment in Zhang. See title).
The instant claim differs from Zhang (as marked up above by examiner) in that, Zhang does not expressly recite a plurality of gradiometer units, and configured for arrangement around a head of a user for the particular experiment shown in Fig 1.
However, Zhang proposes use of a plurality of gradiometer units, and discusses about MEG arrangement using OPM sensors around a head of a user ( Zhang mentions that an MEG measurement helmet is known (Zhang page 1 RHS ), and a whole-head array that uses vapor cell and using more reference magnetometers to form a higher-order magnetic gradiometer is proposed (Zhang page 6 LHS)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the experimental prototype setup in Zhang, as a helmet with multiple gradiometer units. The motivation would be to allow head movement and to localize the neuronal activity (Zhang page 1 RHS, page 6 LHS).
As per claim 8, Zhang further teaches does not expressly teach wherein the head of the user can be received in the holding device such that the head remains freely movable relative to the holding device (Zhang page 1 RHS “A wearable MEG system based on an array of OPM sensors, which allows head movement” ),
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Iwata [US 20210373092 A1].
Zhang does not expressly teach wherein the sensor unit further comprises a position reference unit wearable on the head of a user and configured to determine a relative position or relative movement between the head of a user and the plurality of gradiometer units, or wherein the position reference unit comprises at least one gyroscope or at least one element configured to generate a reference magnetic field that can be detected by magnetometers of the sensor unit.
Iwata, in a related field of magnetoencephalography (MEG), teaches wherein the sensor unit further comprises a position reference unit wearable on the head of a user and configured to determine a relative position or relative movement between the head of a user and the plurality of gradiometer units (Iwata ¶0050 “tracking information, such as pose, motion, or position of the helmet or orientation of the OPM sensors (or any combination thereof) including the relative position or pose of the user's head with respect to the helmet or other headgear.”, ¶0080 “inertial sensors 332, such as gyroscopes (for example, a 3-axis gyroscope) or accelerometers (such as a 3-axis accelerometer) or any combination thereof, are rigidly attached to the helmet 302 or the user 306”), or
wherein the position reference unit comprises at least one gyroscope or at least one element configured to generate a reference magnetic field that can be detected by magnetometers of the sensor unit (Iwata ¶0080).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Zhang by utilizing a modified helmet / headgear for brain measurements as in Iwata, so that motion artifacts due to motion of head can be compensated (Iwata ¶0070).
Claims 11, 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shahaf [US 20120296569 A1].
As per claims 11, it has limitations similar to claim1 and is rejected for same reasons as above. Zhang does not expressly teach checking the time course of one or more magnetic field gradients for the occurrence of predetermined patterns.
Shahaf, in a related field of neurophysiology teaches checking the time course of one or more magnetic field gradients for the occurrence of predetermined patterns (Shahaf ¶0119-¶0120, ¶0111 constructing, comparing BNA patterns).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Zhang by analyzing neurophysiological data, as in Shahaf. The motivation would be to identify multiple conditions like ADHD, stroke, traumatic brain injury etc. (Shahaf ¶0207).
As per claim 14, Zhang in view of Shahaf further teaches detecting, based on checking the time course, an undesirable state of the user, and initiating responses based on the detection (Shahaf ¶0212-¶0216 detecting and analyzing anormal BNA).
As per claim 15, Zhang in view of Shahaf further teaches wherein the undesirable state comprises one of the following: fatigue, stress, falling asleep, a neural disease, stroke, and epilepsy (Shahaf ¶0207).
As per claims 16-18, Zhang in view of Shahaf further teaches a computing unit, which is configured to carry out all method steps of a method according to claim 11, or a computer program which prompts a computing unit to carry out all method steps of a method according to claim 11 when it is executed on the computing unit, or a machine-readable storage medium with a computer program stored thereon according to claim 17 (Shahaf ¶0057).
Claims 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Shahaf as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Iwata [US 20210373092 A1].
As per claims 12-13, Zhang in view of Shahaf does not expressly teach further comprising detecting a position reference signal for determining a relative position between the gradiometer units and the head of a user, and processing the position reference signal and the magnetic field gradients to determine a position-corrected path of the magnetic field gradients, wherein the signal for forming a position reference comprises one of the following: an additional brain current-induced magnetic field signal independent of a user's mental state; a gyroscope signal from one or more gyroscopes attached to the head of a user; and a magnetic field signal generated by a position reference unit attached to the head of a user.
Iwata, in a related field of magnetoencephalography (MEG), teaches detecting a position reference signal for determining a relative position between the gradiometer units and the head of a user (Iwata Fig 3, ¶0049-¶0050, ¶0086, head moved and tracked with respect to helmet, ¶0050 “tracking information, such as pose, motion, or position of the helmet or orientation of the OPM sensors (or any combination thereof) including the relative position or pose of the user's head with respect to the helmet or other headgear”), and
processing the position reference signal and the magnetic field gradients to determine a position-corrected path of the magnetic field gradients (Iwata ¶0106 “The horizontal (x) positions of the helmet 302 (or helmet fiducial) and user's head 306′ are no longer aligned, indicating that the helmet 302 has moved relative to the head. Using the tracking data, which includes orientation, distance and lateral x and y positions, the co-registration can be corrected to account for this change”);
wherein the position reference signal comprises one of: an additional brain current-induced magnetic field signal independent of a user's mental state; a gyroscope signal from one or more gyroscopes attached to the head of a user; and a magnetic field signal generated by a position reference unit attached to the head of a user (Examiner choses gyroscope. Iwata ¶0080).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Zhang in view of Shahaf by utilizing a modified helmet / headgear for brain measurements as in Iwata, so that motion artifacts due to motion of head can be compensated (Iwata ¶0070).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights