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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-174947, filed on 10/10/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/4/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a step of identifying, for each of the one or more magnetic sensors, a magnetic field resulting from a position when the output value is derived” where “a magnetic field resulting from a position” appears to be different than “a magnetic field from each of the one or more magnetic sensors”. However, there is no description to show the different between the limitations and no description of “a magnetic field resulting from a position”.
As best understood examiner interprets “a magnetic field resulting from a position” as noise. Examiner assumes the magnetic field sensed by the sensor would include the magnetic field of the brain and external magnetic field such as earth and/or peripheral equipment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oida et al. (US 20230061021, hereinafter Oida), and further in view of Shapiro et al. (US 20210247468, hereinafter Shapiro).
Regarding to claim 1, Oida discloses a data processing method (fig. 3) for one or more (fig. 1 shows magnetoencephalographic system with plurality of magnetometer 1A), comprising:
a step of acquiring an output value of a magnetic field from each of the one or more magnetic sensors (fig. 3 step 11 and paragraph 0030 discloses magnetometer 1A is a sensor that measures a brain magnetic field);
a step of identifying, for each of the one or more magnetic sensors, a magnetic field resulting from a position when the output value is derived (paragraph 0030 discloses magnetic sensor 2 is a sensor that measures a magnetic field related to a geomagnetism at the position corresponding to the optically pumped magnetometer 1A); and
a step of generating, for each of the one or more magnetic sensors, a detection value by removing the magnetic field resulting from the position from the output value (paragraph 0030 discloses to remove noise and paragraph 0032).
However, Oida does not disclose portable magnetic sensors.
Fig. 3 and paragraph 0004 of Shapiro shows discloses “technique for measuring neural activity in the brain is magnetoencephalography (MEG), which is capable of non-invasively detecting neural activity in the brain without potentially harmful ionizing radiation, and without use of heavy or large equipment. Thus, MEG-based neural activity measurement systems can be scaled to wearable or portable form factors”.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to incorporate Shapiro in order to reduce cost (paragraph 0006).
Regarding to claim 2, Oida in view of Shapiro discloses the data processing method as recited in claim 1, wherein the one or more magnetic sensors derive the output value in a measurement area (fig. 1 shows plurality of sensors arranged at different locations), and a magnetic field distribution is identified with respect to the measurement area (fig. 3 step 11 and paragraph 0030 discloses magnetometer 1A is a sensor that measures a brain magnetic field) , and wherein identifying the magnetic field resulting from the position includes identifying, from the magnetic field distribution in the measurement area (paragraph 0030 discloses magnetic sensor 2 is a sensor that measures a magnetic field related to a geomagnetism at the position corresponding to the optically pumped magnetometer 1A), a combination of magnetic fields corresponding to a combination of output values of the one or more magnetic sensors (paragraph 0024 of Shapiro discloses summing the known actuated magnetic field at each of the magnetometer(s) and the outside magnetic field estimate at each of the magnetometer(s)), and identifying, from the identified combination of the magnetic fields, a magnetic field corresponding to the position of each of the one or more magnetic sensors (paragraphs 0026, 28. 0031 of Shapiro discloses measurement at a plurality of detection locations).
Regarding to claim 5, Oida in view of Shapiro discloses the data processing method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: a step of acquiring position information on each of the one or more magnetic sensors in a state in which the one or more magnetic sensors are attached to the subject (paragraph 0030 measures a magnetic field related to a geomagnetism at the position corresponding to the optically pumped magnetometer 1A; paragraph 0033 measures a fluctuating magnetic field at a position corresponding to the optically pumped magnetometer 1A); and a step of identifying the predetermined arrangement, based on the position information on each of the one or more magnetic sensors (fig. 1 shows sensors at predetermined arrangement).
Regarding to claim 6, Oida in view of Shapiro discloses a recording medium non-transiently storing a program which, when executed by one or more processors of a computer, makes the computer execute the data processing method as recited in claim 1 (paragraphs 0003, 99 of Shapiro discloses a brain computer and programmable logic device; 0049 of Oida discloses control device 5 functions by executing a program stored in the memory on the CPU of a computer system).
Regarding to claim 7, Oida in view of Shapiro discloses a data processing system comprising: a computer (paragraph 0049); and one or more portable magnetic sensors (fig. 3 of Shapiro shows plurality portable sensors), wherein the computer includes one or more processors, and the recording medium as recited in claim 6 (paragraph 0049 of Oida).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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 to claim 3, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein identifying the combination of the magnetic fields includes calculating, for each of a plurality of combinations of magnetic fields according to the predetermined arrangement, a value of a likelihood function indicating that each combination is a combination of the output values of the one or more of magnetic sensors, and identifying a combination in which the value of the likelihood function becomes maximum, from among the plurality of combinations in the magnetic distribution” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 112 rejection set forth above.
Claim 4 further limits claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5818. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7AM - 4PM.
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 5712724448. 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.
/SON T LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights