Attorney Docket Number: 83784-30US/MRW
Filing Date: 07/19/2022
Claimed Priority Date: 07/23/2021 (PRO 63/225,102)
Inventors: Albert et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 11/12/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention II, reading on a process of making a device, and Species 1, reading on the detector described in pars.0050-0054 of published application US 2023/0028695, in the reply filed on 11/12/2025, is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant canceled claims 2-4 and 7-14, added new claims 15-16, and indicated that claims 1, 5-6, and 15-16 read on the elected invention and/or species. The examiner agrees. Therefore, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 5-6, and 15-16.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. It is noted that all dependent claims must inherit the features of the claims from which they depend and any feature recited in a claim must be congruent with all other features recited in the same claim. No new matter should be entered.
“Providing more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal arranged in an array, each respective ferrimagnetic or ferromagnetic crystal having a different control resonance frequency”, as recited in claim 1
“Measuring an irradiated resonance frequency of the irradiated more than one suitable ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal”, as recited in claim 1
“Determining the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation irradiating the more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal in the array from the respective control resonance frequency and the respective irradiated resonance frequency”, as recited in claim 1
“Wherein the array is used in combination with a microwave spectrometer for measuring resonance frequencies as a detector”, as recited in claim 16
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the ferrimagnetic crystal is a hexaferrite crystal”. No “ferrimagnetic crystal” is sufficiently previously recited in the claim, and parental claim 1 only recites the presence of “more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal”. In the case that only a ferromagnetic crystal is chosen for parental claim 1, the “ferrimagnetic crystal” limitation of dependent claim 5 would have no precedent or antecedent basis. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “wherein the ferrimagnetic crystal is a hexaferrite crystal” in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the ferrimagnetic crystal is a hexaferrite crystal”. No singular “ferrimagnetic crystal” is sufficiently previously recited in the claim, and parental claim 1 only recites the presence of “more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal”. It is unclear which one of the potentially plural “more than one” ferrimagnetic crystals the claim intends to employ for the seemingly singular limitations “the ferrimagnetic crystal” and “the hexaferrite crystal” or if the claim specifically only intends to employ a singular ferrimagnetic crystal overall. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the ferrimagnetic crystal is a Y-type ferrite”. No “ferrimagnetic crystal” is sufficiently previously recited in the claim, and parental claim 1 only recites the presence of “more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal”. In the case that only a ferromagnetic crystal is chosen for parental claim 1, the “ferrimagnetic crystal” limitation of dependent claim 5 would have no precedent or antecedent basis. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “wherein the ferrimagnetic crystal is a Y-type ferrite” in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the ferrimagnetic crystal is a Y-type ferrite”. No singular “ferrimagnetic crystal” is sufficiently previously recited in the claim, and parental claim 1 only recites the presence of “more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal”. It is unclear which one of the potentially plural “more than one” ferrimagnetic crystals the claim intends to employ for the seemingly singular limitations “the ferrimagnetic crystal” and “a Y-type ferrite” or if the claim specifically only intends to employ a singular ferrimagnetic crystal overall. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and thus inherits the deficiencies identified supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 6 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a method for determining intensity of electromagnetic radiation at more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal suitable for producing a photoinduced magnetoelectric effect comprising all of: providing more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal arranged in an array, each respective ferrimagnetic or ferromagnetic crystal having a different control resonance frequency; exposing the more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal to electromagnetic radiation of unknown intensity or variable intensity such that the more than one suitable ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal in the array undergoes an internal photoelectric effect; measuring an irradiated resonance frequency of the irradiated more than one suitable ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal; and determining the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation irradiating the more than one ferrimagnetic crystal and/or ferromagnetic crystal in the array from the respective control resonance frequency and the respective irradiated resonance frequency.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814