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 .
Remarks/Response to Arguments
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected Group II, claims 6-14, have been withdrawn from consideration.
35 U.S.C. § 102/103 Rejections
Sherrer with May: Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of modifying Sherrer's sensing unit have a single sheet having both a groove and fiber through hole is found persuasive and is withdrawn.
May with Sherrer: Applicant argues against making May's sensing unit by using Sherrer's quartz sheet dicing method because May preferably uses a single crystal material like sapphire instead of quartz. This is not found persuasive. May's preference for sapphire does not render the combination of May and Sherrer non-obvious. May does not teach away from using quartz and nor is May's sensing unit limited to only using sapphire.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim 5 is rejected in light of the claim clearly being directed a product and the recitation of the process of making the product is not found to structurally distinguish the product. See MPEP 2113.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by May et al. (US 2005/01955402).
The following is a quotation from MPEP 2113:
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Remark: Claim 5 does not clearly link the elements to the elements found in claim 1. For instance, the first inner surface of claim 5 is not clearly linked to one of the surfaces recited in claim 1. In addition, claim 5 does not require a groove to be on the same surface where the through hole is.
May shows: 5. A fiber-optic Fabry-Perot pressure sensor comprising a sensing unit and a fiber-optic, wherein:
the sensing unit (title, e.g. Fig. 1) comprises a first inner surface (122), a second inner surface (inner surface of 110) opposite to the first inner surface, a cavity (114) formed between the first inner surface and the second inner surface, and a through hole (112) communicating with the cavity via the second inner surface;
a size of the fiber-optic (130) matches a size of the through hole and the fiber-optic is embedded in the through hole (112);
an axis of the fiber-optic is orthogonal to the first inner surface (see Fig. 1) and an end surface (132) of the fiber-optic is parallel to the first inner surface, the end of the fiber-optic being embedded in the through hole (112); and
a light ray entering the cavity via the fiber-optic is reflected between the end surface of the fiber-optic and the first inner surface (para. [0023]); and
the sensing unit is prepared by following steps:
preparing a first quartz sheet with an upper surface and a lower surface and a second quartz sheet with an upper surface and a lower surface, polishing the upper surface of the first quartz sheet, the first quartz sheet being a single layer, and polishing the upper surface of the second quartz sheet;
fabricating a plurality of grooves in the upper surface of the first quartz sheet;
fabricating fiber-optic through holes that extend through the first quartz sheet and are configured to match a size of a fiber-optic, each of the through holes being coaxial with a corresponding groove of the plurality of the grooves and communicating with the corresponding groove of the plurality of the grooves;
combining the upper surface of the second quartz sheet with the upper surface of the first quartz sheet in a manner of covering the plurality of grooves to form a laminated body; and
cutting the laminated body to obtain a plurality of sensing units (the limitations of how the sensing unit is prepared does not serve to structurally distinguish the sensing unit. See MPEP 2113. The claim is directed to a product, not the process.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haritonidis et al. (US 4,942,767).
Haritonidis shows a fiber-optic Fabry-Perot pressure sensor comprising a sensing unit and a fiber-optic, wherein:
the sensing unit (e.g. Fig. 1a) comprises a first inner surface (94), a second inner surface (inner surface of 98) opposite to the first inner surface, a cavity (96) formed between the first inner surface and the second inner surface, and a through hole (See Fig. 1a where the fiber 86 is embedded in support 98) communicating with the cavity via the second inner surface;
a size of the fiber-optic (See Fig. 1a where the fiber 86 is embedded in support 98) matches a size of the through hole and the fiber-optic is embedded in the through hole (112);
an axis of the fiber-optic is orthogonal to the first inner surface (although Fig. 1 does not show the orthogonal relationship, one of ordinary skill would understand the fiber is orthogonal to the first inner surface because the light reflects back into the fiber) and an end surface (col. 43; lines) of the fiber-optic is parallel to the first inner surface, the end of the fiber-optic being embedded in the through hole (112); and
a light ray entering the cavity via the fiber-optic is reflected between the end surface of the fiber-optic and the first inner surface (para. [0023]); and
the sensing unit is prepared by following steps:
preparing a first quartz sheet with an upper surface and a lower surface and a second quartz sheet with an upper surface and a lower surface, polishing the upper surface of the first quartz sheet, the first quartz sheet being a single layer, and polishing the upper surface of the second quartz sheet;
fabricating a plurality of grooves in the upper surface of the first quartz sheet;
fabricating fiber-optic through holes that extend through the first quartz sheet and are configured to match a size of a fiber-optic, each of the through holes being coaxial with a corresponding groove of the plurality of the grooves and communicating with the corresponding groove of the plurality of the grooves;
combining the upper surface of the second quartz sheet with the upper surface of the first quartz sheet in a manner of covering the plurality of grooves to form a laminated body; and
cutting the laminated body to obtain a plurality of sensing units (the limitations of how the sensing unit is prepared does not serve to structurally distinguish the sensing unit. See 2113. The claim is directed to a product, not the process.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherrer et al. (US 2002/0003817) in view of May et al. (US 2005/01955402) and Thompson (US 2004/0080834).
Sherrer shows a method for making a plurality of fiber-optic Fabry-Perot pressure sensors:
1. A method for preparing a sensing unit of a fiber-optic Fabry-Perot pressure sensor (Figure 12), comprising:
preparing a first quartz sheet (“fiber stop 28…can be made of…quartz” para. [0089]) with an upper surface and a lower surface and a second quartz sheet (“diaphragm cap layer 32…can be made of…quartz” para. [0089]) with an upper surface and a lower surface,
fabricating a plurality of grooves (fiber side of the two-level structure; para. [0079]) in the upper surface of the first quartz sheet (para. [0073]: “Preferably, the fiber stop hole 80 is made by anisotropic etching. The 2-level structure can be made by dry etching or anisotropic wet etching”;
fabricating (the other level of the two-level structure) the first quartz sheet (See e.g. Fig 5d which shows them axially aligned);
combining the upper surface of the second quartz sheet with the upper surface of the first quartz sheet in a manner of covering the plurality of grooves to form a laminated body (para. [0061]: “After the diaphragm cap layer 32 and fiber stop layer 28 are bonded”).; and
cutting the laminated body at the plurality of grooves to obtain a plurality of sensing units (para. [0061]: “After the diaphragm cap layer 32 and fiber stop layer 28 are bonded, and after the reflective coating 38 is applied, the wafer is diced into individual pressure sensors.”).
First sheet having the grooves and through holes:
As indicated above by the strikeouts, Sherrer does not show that it is the first sheet that has the grooves and the fiber optic through holes.
May shows an optical fiber Fabry-Perot sensor, e.g. Fig. 1, where a first sheet, single section (110), has both a fiber optic through hole and a groove (114):
a first (“the ferrule 110, the diaphragm 120 and/or the optical fiber 130 are formed from a single crystal material" para. [0022]) with an upper surface and a lower surface and a second (“diaphragm 120”) with an upper surface and a lower surface, the first
a groove (A pit, or recess, 114; para. [0022]) in the upper surface of the first sheet (para. [0022]: “A pit, or recess, 114 is formed in one end of the ferrule 110.”;
a fiber optic through hole (central bore 112) that extends through the first sheet and is configured to match a size of a fiber optic ("An optical fiber 130 is disposed within the central bore 112"; para. [0022]).,the through hole being coaxial with a corresponding groove and communicating with the corresponding groove (See);
combining the upper surface of the second sheet with the upper surface of the first sheet in a manner of covering the plurality of grooves to form a laminated body (para. [0022]: “A diaphragm 120 is attached to the ferrule 110 to cover the pit 114.”).; and
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to make May’s sensor using Sherrer’s dicing of quarts sheets in order to quickly make many sensors.
Polished bonding surfaces:
As indicated by the strikeouts above, Sherrer and May do not show polishing of the surfaces. Thompson shows Fabry-Perot filters wherein surfaces to be bonded are polished (para. [0078]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to polish the bonding surfaces in order to optimize the contact and thus the quality of the bond between the surfaces.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein, in the laminated body, axes of the through holes are perpendicular to the upper surface of the second quartz sheet (See Sherrer Fig. 12; May Fig. 1).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of air holes are fabricated in the lower surface of the second quartz sheet of the laminated body, each of the plurality of the air holes communicating with a corresponding groove of the plurality of the grooves (Sherrer para. [0087]: “Also, a vent can be provided between the enclosed air space and the outside world.”) Sherrer does not show the vent to be a hole, but a hole for venting would be within common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a hole in order to vent the enclosed space as called for by Sherrer.
5. A fiber-optic Fabry-Perot pressure sensor comprising a sensing unit prepared by the method of claim 1 and a fiber-optic, wherein (using Sherrer's method of making may sensors combined with May's teaching of a sensor in the alternative rejection discussed for claim 1 above), the sensor comprises:
the sensing unit (May: title, e.g. Fig. 1) comprises a first inner surface (122), a second inner surface (inner surface of 110) opposite to the first inner surface, a cavity (114) formed between the first inner surface and the second inner surface, and a through hole (112) communicating with the cavity via the second inner surface;
a size of the fiber-optic (130) matches a size of the through hole and the fiber-optic is embedded in the through hole (112);
an axis of the fiber-optic is orthogonal to the first inner surface (see Fig. 1) and an end surface (132) of the fiber-optic is parallel to the first inner surface, the end of the fiber-optic being embedded in the through hole (112); and
a light ray entering the cavity via the fiber-optic is reflected between the end surface of the fiber-optic and the first inner surface (para. [0023])
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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights