DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, “periodically” is indefinite because it is unclear as to how frequently the adjusting is taking place.
Regarding claim 10, “the digital domain” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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 claims 17-20, the language does not further recite a further limiting step in the method.
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
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labanowski (US 2022/0099763).
Regarding claim 15, Labanowski discloses a method of sensing a biomagnetic field (abstract: “magnetic sensing”) under ambient conditions ([0142]: “biological sensor array and ambient field array”) in an ambulatory subject, the method comprising: placing an acoustically driven ferromagnetic resonance (ADFMR) sensor on a region of a subject's body ([0046]: “smart watches, headphones, fitness trackers” imply an ambulatory subject); shielding, using a flexible foil shield, the ADFMR sensor by at least partially covering the ADFMR sensor with the flexible foil shield ([0113], [0114], Figs. 1 and 2: “shielding 140”: mu-metal shielding is known to be pliable and it is considered to be a foil because it covers an area of space); receiving a signal from the shielded ADFMR sensor worn on the subject; generating a biomagnetic sensor signal from the signal; and outputting the biomagnetic sensor signal ([0097], [0098], [0112], [0142]: “biological sensor array”).
Regarding claim 16, Labanowski discloses shielding comprises partially shielding the ADFMR sensor ([0113], [0114], Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, Labanowski discloses that the flexible foil shield comprises a mumetal foil ([0113], [0114], Figs. 1 and 2).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labanowski (US 2022/0099763) in view of Heidari (US 2026/0102094).
Regarding claim 1, Labanowski discloses a method of sensing a biomagnetic field under ambient conditions in an ambulatory subject, the method comprising: receiving a primary signal from one or more primary acoustically driven ferromagnetic resonance (ADFMR) sensors worn on the subject (abstract; [0142], [0046]: “smart watches, headphones, fitness trackers” imply an ambulatory subject). Labanowski does not explicitly disclose receiving a secondary signal from one or more secondary ADFMR sensors worn on the subject; weighting the secondary signal by a weighting factor; periodically adjusting, at a tuning frequency, the weighting factor; generating a corrected biomagnetic sensor signal by subtracting the primary signal from the weighted secondary signal; and outputting the corrected biomagnetic sensor signal. However, Heidari teaches correcting the signals from a biomagnetic sensor that involves noise-cancellation by subtracting a weighted signal (Fig. 7; [0079], [0080]), wherein the noise-cancelling sensor is the same type as the primary sensor ([0016], [0017], [0073]). Periodically adjusting the weighting factor would have been obvious in view of Heidari because the frequency of performing a correction is an arbitrary value that would best fit the need for correction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the biomagnetic noise correction of Heidari to the sensing of Labanowski, as to provide effective noise reduction techniques.
Regarding claim 2, Labanowski does not explicitly disclose estimating a level of noise from a spectral density of the primary or secondary signal and weighting the secondary signal to minimize the estimated noise. However, Labanowski does teach that a correction factor is based upon a power spectra ([0168]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the spectra of Labanowski, as to provide an optimized offset.
Regarding claim 4, Labanowski does not explicitly disclose receiving the secondary signal comprises receiving the secondary signal from the one or more secondary ADFMR sensor that is flexibly connected to the one or more primary ADFMR sensors. However, Heidari teaches correcting the signals from a biomagnetic sensor that involves noise-cancellation by subtracting a weighted signal from a secondary sensor (Fig. 7; [0079], [0080]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the biomagnetic noise correction of Heidari to the sensing of Labanowski, as to provide effective noise reduction techniques.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Labanowski discloses that the outputting comprises continuous and real-time outputting ([0075]: “heart-rate monitoring” is continuous and real-time).
Regarding claim 7, Labanowski does not explicitly disclose that the one or more secondary ADFMR sensors comprises three or more secondary ADFMR sensors that are arranged orthogonal to each other. However, Heidari teaches correcting the signals from a biomagnetic sensor that involves noise-cancellation by subtracting a weighted signal from a secondary sensor (Fig. 7; [0079], [0080]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the biomagnetic noise correction of Heidari to the sensing of Labanowski, as to provide effective noise reduction techniques.
Regarding claim 10, Labanowski does not explicitly disclose converting the primary signal and the secondary signal into the digital domain before generating the corrected biomagnetic signal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply digitization to the sensor signals, as to provide conventional A/D conversion capabilities.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Labanowski discloses shielding sensors under a mu metal foil ([0113], [0114], Figs. 1 and 2: “shielding 140”: mu-metal shielding is known to be pliable and it is considered to be a foil because it covers an area of space).
Regarding claim 13, Labanowski discloses denoising a signal ([0050], [0051]).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labanowski (US 2022/0099763).
Regarding claim 8, Labanowski does not explicitly disclose that the tuning frequency is adjusted based on input from a motion sensor. However, Labanowski does teach that an additional motion detection sensor may improve magnetic sensor functionality ([0083]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the motion detection of Labanowski to the consideration of how frequently the weighting factor is adjusted, as to provide a motion-dependent correction mechanism.
Regarding claim 9, Labanowski does not explicitly disclose that the tuning frequency is between 0.1 Hz and 10 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply an appropriate tuning frequency to the adjustment of the correction factor, as to provide robust correction.
Regarding claims 18-20, Labanowski does not explicitly disclose that the flexible foil shield is between 0.01 and 0.2 mm thick, approximately 0.1 mm thick, or that it comprises between 1-4 layers of foil. However, Labanowski teaches that a flexible foil shield may be sized and shaped according to the structural limitations of the device ([0113]: “may be incorporated to protect a subset of magnetic sensors”, thus requiring varying physical/dimensional features). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply specific physical features of a flexible foil shield, as to provide a properly constructed and configured shield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights