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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 16-19, 22, and 24-25 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “ the at least one excitation element comprises a resonance frequency”. The mentioned portion is unclear because an element cannot comprise a frequency. A frequency is an abstract unit defining a measurement for a rate at which a repeating event occurs (Oxford Dictionary). How is an excitation element capable of physically comprises a frequency? An excitation element can be most sensitive at a frequency. It is suggested that Applicant amend the claims to define the sensitivity of the excitation element as opposed to comprises a frequency as currently written. The Examiner will examine the claim(s) as such.
The remaining claims 2-4, 7-11, 17-19, 22, and 24-25 are rejected based on the indefiniteness of the parent claim, claims 1 and 16, as presented above.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanaka et al. (JP 2000074886 A; IDS dated 12/19/2022 Foreign Patent Cite No. C; hereinafter Yanaka) in view of Duraffourg (US Publication 2017/0089944).
With regards to claims 1 and 16, Yanaka teaches a system (and a method) comprising:
a light source (1) configured to emit an excitation light ([0018]; FIG. 1);
at least one excitation element (FIG. 2) attached to a surface of a structure, the at least one excitation element comprising a photostrictive material (TeO2 and LiNbO3; [0013, 0017]) and configured to receive the excitation light for generating an oscillating strain, wherein the oscillating strain generates an acoustic wave in the structure ([0019]); and
a detector (including 8) configured to detect the acoustic wave ([0021]).
However, Yanaka is silent regarding wherein the at least one excitation element comprises a resonance frequency based on at least one of a shape, a pattern, and a dimension of the at least one excitation element, and wherein the excitation light is modulated at a modulation frequency matching the resonance frequency of the a least one excitation element.
Duraffourg teaches a sensor comprising electrostrictive material ([0122-0124]) wherein the at least one excitation element comprises a resonance frequency based on at least one of a shape, a pattern, and a dimension of the at least one excitation element ([0127]), and
wherein the excitation light is modulated at a modulation frequency matching the resonance frequency of the a least one excitation element ([0126-0127]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the excitation light source and dimension of the electrostrictive material as taught by Duraffourg to the light source and dimension of the electrostrictive material as taught by Yanaka with reasonable expectation of optimizing the functionality of Yanaka as originally intended.
With regards to claims 4 and 19, Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, teaches (citations to Yanaka unless specified otherwise) the system as claimed in claim 1 and the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the photostrictive material comprises a ferroelectric material ([0013]).
With regards to claim 11, Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, teaches (citations to Yanaka unless specified otherwise) the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the acoustic wave is an ultrasonic wave with frequency above 20 kHz (it is noted that the claim does not further restrict the structural features of the system. The claim merely further define the frequency that is detectable by the detector of the system. Because Yanaka teaches the detection of ultrasonic waves ([0021]), Yanaka is considered to be capable of detecting the wave as claimed).
With regards to claim 25, Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, teaches (citations to Yanaka unless specified otherwise) the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the detector comprises a non-contact sensor ([0021]; the “laser is used as a probe light for detecting ultrasonic waves”).
Claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanaka et al. (JP 2000074886 A; IDS dated 12/19/2022 Foreign Patent Cite No. C; hereinafter Yanaka) in view of Duraffourg (US Publication 2017/0089944), and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 108088801 A; see machine translation; hereinafter Wang).
With regards to claims 2 and 17, Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 and the method as claimed in claim 16. However, Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, is silent regarding wherein the excitation light is modulated based on a light intensity.
Wang teaches a light source (including 1.1) configured to emit an excitation light (see highlighted paragraph; FIG. 1), wherein the excitation light is modulated based on a light intensity (highlighted paragraphs).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known type of light source such as those taught by Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, with another type of light source such as those taught by Wang with reasonable expectation of controlling the excitation light as desired (see highlighted paragraph; Wang).
With regards to claims 3 and 18, Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 and the method as claimed in claim 16. However, Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, is silent regarding wherein the excitation light is modulated based on an optical polarization.
Wang teaches a light source (including 1.1) configured to emit an excitation light (see highlighted paragraph; FIG. 1), wherein the excitation light is modulated based on an optical polarization (highlighted paragraphs).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known type of light source such as those taught by Yanaka, as combined with Duraffourg, with another type of light source such as those taught by Wang with reasonable expectation of controlling the excitation light as desired (see highlighted paragraph; Wang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached on (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853