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 .
35 USC 112(a)
Claims 11-16 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 11, there is no explanation as to what sensing equipment can be employed to actually calculate a time differential between a sent first light signal and received second light signal, and employ time such to determine position/distance in a dimensional range suggested by bonding dimensions associated with a wafer in the instant application. (Para 17 provides a 20 mm by 20 mm area sample) Nothing in the application appears to suggest an actual working device that employs the speed of light to determine distance as a function of speed and time on the basis of such small displacement and great speed. There is no reference available that shows a device that can measure the small period of time between which a light signal is sent, and subsequently received in over such a short distance, and which can be employed to measure such a small distance.
35 USC 112(b) REJECTION
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 11, ”mirror attached to a plate” is problematic because the specification (and claim 1) indicates that the mirror is a portion of the plate. The claim is not consistent with the specification.
As to claim 16, the “an optical fiber sensor assembly” is the same structure as the “a fiber bundle” (line 2, claim 11), and thus the same structure is twice introduced/claimed in the same claim. Such is not consistent with the drawings which indicate one such structure.,
As to claim 17, “plate comprising a polydimethyulsiloxane” (line 3) is not consistent with the plate being “a metal plate” (line 2). The “plate” (line 2) is plate that comprises metal.
As to claim 17, the “first” and “second” portions are not those of the same component (that which includes the portions) because the “a mirror” separates both.
As to claim 17, “a mirror” is confusing because such is a portion of (and even defines) the “plate” (lines 2,3). In effect, the same structure (i.e. the mirror) is twice claimed (once as the plate, and a second time a part of the assembly).
As to claim 17, the preamble calls for an “apparatus” (i.e. all elements are connected together), but the body of the claim describes a list of parts as the last 2 lines are not connected to remaining limitations. The claim is internally inconsistent.
35 USC 103 REJECTION
Claim(s) 1,2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King 20110061452 in view of Chen CN 102788888, and further in view of Erickson 20160202288.
King et al 452 teach (Figure 2A; Para 82) a plate connected to moving mechanism (Piezo element); probe tip 202 part of the plate; light reflective surface on top of the plate; assembly including light source 208 and detector 209. Light source is a fiber, and the detector is any that determines position of the light beam reflected.
The source and detector are not that of a bundle, the light reflective surface is not assuredly a mirror.
Chen et al 888 teach (Figure 3) employs a laser source 13 as receiver 12 as a bundle.
As to claims 1,2, it would have been obvious to employ Chen’s bundle in place of Kings separate source 203/detector 209 because Chen teaches that a single assembly 20 may be employed to effectively measure displacement of moving cantilever. Also, it would have been obvious to employ a mirror on the cantilever, as Erickson suggest that a mirror will provide sufficient reflectivity for the light source.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King 20110061452 in view of Chen CN 102788888 and Erickson 20160202288 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chand 7913544.
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to employ metal as the cantilever as Chad teaches (claim 7; column 10, lines 31+) that cantilevers will effectively operate with metal.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King 20110061452 in view of Chen CN 102788888, Erickson 20160202288 and Chand 7913544 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang 2007/0062264.
As to claim 10, it would have been obvious to employ PDMS as the probe tip in a AFM probe as Wang teaches (Para 32) that such is an effective material for such.
PRIOR ART NOT APPLIED
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawanaka et al CN 105659118 teach (Figure 3) sending and receiving reflected light signal via optical fibers 230, the reflection is from a moving metal plate 100. However, the plate does not move perpendicular to the plate (per claim 11), a time difference is not determined (per claims 11) , the plate is not a probe (per claims 1,17).
OBJECTED TO CLAIMS
Claims 3-8 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.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855