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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) have been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Entry of Amendments
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9-10 have been amended.
Claim(s) 2-3 have been canceled.
New Claim(s) 13-19 have been added.
Objections to the Claims
Amendments made to claim 1 have overcome the previous objections. Claim 1 is no longer objected.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant’s amendments filed 08/06/2026 with respect to Claim(s) 1, 4-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant(s) have amended independent claim(s) 1 and 15 to patentably distinguish over prior art of Seki alone or in combination with others, however the Examiner believes that Seki alone or in combination with others still teaches the amended limitations.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 4-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference(s) and/or ground(s) being used in the current rejection.
For further details see the rejections/objections for Claim(s) 1,4-19 herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding Claim 4, it depends on canceled claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seki et al. (US 20050202572; hereinafter Seki).
Regarding claim 15, Seki discloses in figure(s) 1-21 a magnetic field detection system (para. 63-70) comprising:
a shield box (1-3; fig. 4) having a plurality of parts (9 and multiple parts of 13) and plurality of magnetic shields (1a-c) that surround a measurement space;
a magnetic sensor (11) arranged in the measurement space;
a sample stage (3) inserted at least at a part thereof into the measurement space; and
a drive mechanism (4) for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage (3) and the shield box (1),
wherein the plurality of parts include first, second, third, and fourth parts,
wherein the plurality of magnetic shields include a first magnetic shield (1c) sandwiched between the first and second parts (9, 1c, 13a), a second magnetic shield (1b) sandwiched between the second and third parts (13a on both side of 1b), and a third magnetic shield (1a) sandwiched between the third and fourth parts (13a, 1a, 13a), and wherein the magnetic sensor (11) is fixed to the first part.
Regarding claim 16, Seki discloses in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the second shield covers the measurement space from a first direction and a third direction perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein each of the first and third shields covers the measurement space from the third direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first and third directions (3-D covered shields of 1a, 1b, 1c in figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 17, Seki discloses in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 16, wherein each of the first and third shield has a cylindrical shape in which an axial direction of the first and third shields extends in the first direction (z-axis of cylindrical shields in figs. 7-8 ).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Woolger et al. (US 20200064428).
Regarding claim 1, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 a magnetic field detection system (para. 63-70) comprising:
a shield box (1; fig. 4) having a magnetic shield (1a-c) surrounding a measurement space;
a magnetic sensor (11) fixed to the shield box in the measurement space;
a sample stage (3) inserted at least at a part thereof into the measurement space; and
a drive mechanism (4) for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage (3) and the shield box (1),
wherein the drive mechanism includes a first drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a first direction, a second drive mechanism (rotating mechanism 4, moving stage 5) for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (para. 67 – rotating mechanism 4 is held to be movable in three-dimensional directions over a moving stage 5. The sample holder 3 is moved into magnetic shields 1 by the motion of the rotating mechanism 4 over the moving stage 5 and positionally adjusted), and wherein a surface of the sample stage on which a sample is placed extends in the first and second directions, wherein the first and second drive mechanisms drive the sample stage (para. 34 - a moving mechanism and a positional adjusting mechanism for inserting the disk-shaped sample holder into the magnetic shield device),
Seki does not teach explicitly a third drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions, and wherein the third drive mechanism drives the shield box.
However, Woolger teaches in figure(s) 1-5 a third drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions (sample 200 horizontal plane in fig. 4), and wherein the third drive mechanism (vertical/rotational movement of 20/10) drives the shield box (para. 45 - magnetic shield device 10 may be arranged at any suitable angle or orientation for screening).
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 teachings of Seki by having a third drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions, and wherein the third drive mechanism drives the shield box as taught by Woolger in order to provide "a shielding arrangement that allows samples to be inserted without opening and closing the enclosure." (para. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the magnetic shield includes a cylindrical first magnetic shield that covers the measurement space from both sides in the second direction and both sides in the third direction and a second magnetic shield that covers the measurement space from one side in the first direction, and wherein the sample stage is inserted into the measurement space from another side in the first direction (arrangement of fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 5, wherein at least part of the first and second magnetic shields has an arc-like shape (arrangement of fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the magnetic shield further includes a third magnetic shield that covers the first magnetic shield from the second and third directions (shields 1 a-c; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 2 wherein a plurality of the magnetic sensors are provided in the measurement space, and wherein the plurality of the magnetic sensors include first and second magnetic sensors arranged in one of the first and second directions (11 arrangement in fig. 20).
Regarding claim 11, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 10 wherein the plurality of the magnetic sensors further include a third magnetic sensor, wherein the third magnetic sensor is located between the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor in the one of the first and second directions and is located at a position different from the first and second magnetic sensors in other of the first and second directions (para. 122 - SQUIDs 11 are arranged at intervals so that each of the samples fixed on the three concentric circles pass right above one or another of the SQUIDs 11; fig. 20).
Regarding claim 13, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the shield box further has a first part covering an inner surface of the magnetic shield (1c) and a second part covering an outer surface of the magnetic shield such that the magnetic shield is sandwiched between the first and second parts (9, 1c, 13a), and
wherein the magnetic sensor (11) is fixed to the first part of the shield box.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 20060055402).
Regarding claim 18, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 17,
Seki does not teach explicitly wherein the sample stage is inserted into the measurement space in the first direction.
However, Matsuoka teaches in figure(s) 1-68 wherein the sample stage (121; fig. 10) is inserted into the measurement space in the first direction (x/y direction).
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 teachings of Seki by having wherein the sample stage is inserted into the measurement space in the first direction as taught by Matsuoka in order to provide "the subject can easily get in and out of the magnetically shielded space 307 from the side" (para. 358).
Regarding claim 19, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 16,
wherein the drive mechanism includes a first drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a first direction, a second drive mechanism (rotating mechanism 4, moving stage 5) for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (para. 67 – rotating mechanism 4 is held to be movable in three-dimensional directions over a moving stage 5. The sample holder 3 is moved into magnetic shields 1 by the motion of the rotating mechanism 4 over the moving stage 5 and positionally adjusted), and wherein a surface of the sample stage on which a sample is placed extends in the first and second directions, wherein the first and second drive mechanisms drive the sample stage (para. 34 - a moving mechanism and a positional adjusting mechanism for inserting the disk-shaped sample holder into the magnetic shield device),
Seki does not teach explicitly a third drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions, and wherein the third drive mechanism drives the shield box.
However, Matsuoka teaches in figure(s) 1-68 a third drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage (121; fig. 10) and the shield box (2,3) in a third direction (r,z) perpendicular to the first and second directions (x,y), and wherein the third drive mechanism (vertical/rotational movement of 20/10) drives the shield box (para. 178 - cylindrical shields 1, 2, 3, 11 of the magnetic shielding apparatus … for moving the top plate 121 in directions of the x-, y- and z-axes; shields 1,23 with revolving door 4; figs. 1,10).
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 teachings of Seki by having a third drive mechanism for varying a relative positional relationship between the sample stage and the shield box in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions, and wherein the third drive mechanism drives the shield box as taught by Matsuoka in order to provide "a biomagnetism measuring device using a high-performance cylindrical shielding apparatus provided with a flange-type plate having an opening formed on a circumferential face …circumferential part of the cylindrical shield is inserted between the circumferential parts of the cylindrical shields when the revolving door is closed, cylindrical internal space is formed and an environmental magnetic field that invades the internal space is screened" (abstract).
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Woolger, and further in view of Welsch et al. (US 20090278530).
Regarding claim 4, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 3,
Seki does not teach explicitly further comprising a magnetic field collecting element which is disposed on an element formation surface of the magnetic sensor that extends parallel to the third direction and which is elongated in a direction perpendicular to the element formation surface.
However, Welsch teaches in figure(s) 1-3 further comprising a magnetic field collecting element (18,20; fig. 1 ) which is disposed on an element formation surface (pole surface 14,16) of the magnetic sensor (magnetic sensor 22) that extends parallel to the third direction and which is elongated in a direction perpendicular to the element formation surface.
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 teachings of Seki by having further comprising a magnetic field collecting element which is disposed on an element formation surface of the magnetic sensor that extends parallel to the third direction and which is elongated in a direction perpendicular to the element formation surface as taught by Welsch in order to provide combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results as evidenced by "soft-magnetic collector element, which taps the magnetic field of at least two similarly magnetized poles and supplies them to the sensor element, permits the geometry of the transmitting element to be decoupled from the geometry of the sensor element" (para. 4).
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Woolger, and further in view of MIYASAKA et al. (US 20160360987).
Regarding claim 7, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 5,
Seki does not teach explicitly further comprising a sensor holder that holds the magnetic sensor, wherein the first magnetic shield has a flat part extending in the first and second directions, wherein the shield box further has a part that covers an inner wall of the flat part of the first magnetic shield from the third direction, and wherein the sensor holder is fixed to the part of the shield box.
However, MIYASAKA teaches in figure(s) 1-33 further comprising a sensor holder that holds the magnetic sensor, wherein the first magnetic shield has a flat part extending in the first and second directions, wherein the shield box further has a part that covers an inner wall of the flat part of the first magnetic shield from the third direction, and wherein the sensor holder is fixed to the part of the shield box (fixation of the sensor 4 at the upper flat part of shield 2; fig. 2).
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 teachings of Seki by having further comprising a sensor holder that holds the magnetic sensor, wherein the first magnetic shield has a flat part extending in the first and second directions, wherein the shield box further has a part that covers an inner wall of the flat part of the first magnetic shield from the third direction, and wherein the sensor holder is fixed to the part of the shield box as taught by MIYASAKA in order to provide "a magnetic field measurement apparatus which can detect a distribution of magnetic vectors of a subject" (para. 7).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki in view of Woolger, and further in view of GAINE et al. (US 20220237334).
Regarding claim 9, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 2,
Seki does not teach explicitly further comprising a fourth magnetic shield that covers the magnetic sensor from the first and second directions in the measurement space.
However, GAINE teaches in figure(s) 1-15 further comprising a fourth magnetic shield that covers the magnetic sensor from the first and second directions in the measurement space (para. 128 - ferrite sheet or layer 23 may itself be covered with an electrically conductive metal sheet or layer that further enhances the electromagnetic shielding; fig. 2).
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 teachings of Seki by having further comprising a fourth magnetic shield that covers the magnetic sensor from the first and second directions in the measurement space as taught by GAINE in order to provide "second sheet/layer, which plays the role of a passive electromagnetic shield, may itself be covered with an electrically conductive metal sheet/layer … further enhances the shielding of the device" (para. 29).
Regarding claim 12, Seki teaches in figure(s) 1-21 the magnetic field detection system as claimed in claim 10,
Seki does not teach explicitly further comprising a plurality of fourth magnetic shields each covers an associated one of the plurality of magnetic sensors from the first and second directions in the measurement space.
However, GAINE teaches in figure(s) 1-15 further comprising a plurality of fourth magnetic shields each covers an associated one of the plurality of magnetic sensors from the first and second directions in the measurement space (para. 128 - ferrite sheet or layer 23 may itself be covered with an electrically conductive metal sheet or layer that further enhances the electromagnetic shielding; fig. 2).
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 teachings of Seki by having further comprising a plurality of fourth magnetic shields each covers an associated one of the plurality of magnetic sensors from the first and second directions in the measurement space as taught by GAINE in order to provide "second sheet/layer, which plays the role of a passive electromagnetic shield, may itself be covered with an electrically conductive metal sheet/layer … further enhances the shielding of the device" (para. 29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the prior arts of record do not fairly teach or suggest “a frame having first and third guides; and a movable beam configured to be movable in the first direction along the first guide, the movable beam having a second guide extending in the second direction, wherein the shield box is connected to the third guide, wherein the sample stage is connected to the movable beam, wherein the first drive mechanism includes the first guide, wherein the second drive mechanism includes the second guide, and wherein the third drive mechanism includes the third guide.” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights