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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Remarks on page 8, Applicant argues that the present specification makes clear that the claimed photostrictive effect is a non-thermal light-matter interaction, and further explains that acoustic-wave generation is enhanced when the light modulation frequency matches the structural resonance frequency of the excitation element. Yanaka does not teach that arrangement or mechanism. Rather, Yanaka repeatedly describes coating the object surface with a material having an electrostrictive effect and exciting ultrasound by scanned interference fringes generated from two coherent laser beams of different frequencies, with excitation optimized by matching interference-fringe phase velocity to ultrasonic wavefront phase velocity. Thus, the reference’s disclosure describes a materially different excitation principle, different structure, and different design from the claimed photostrictive excitation element that itself converts modulated excitation light into oscillating strain.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Yanaka does not teach the claimed photostrictive material. As specified in the rejection, the materials that Yanaka disclosed as electrostrictive are TeO2 and LiNbO3 ([0013]). It is noted that although the materials are described as having electrostrictive effect, they do not exclusively have electrostrictive effect. At least one of the two materials disclosed, LiNbO3, is a known photostrictive and ferroelectric material as evidence by Bai (Non-Patent Literature Y. Bai, Photoresponsive Piezoelectrics, Frontiers in Materials, published 02/26/2021; page 3, left column, first paragraph). Thus, Yanaka is considered to teach a photostrictive material as required by the claims.
With respect to the Remarks on pages 8-9, Applicant argues that Duraffourg is directed to an opto-mechanical inertial sensor employing optical resonators, lever-arm amplification, and optical readout. That is, Duraffourg is on a completely different subject with a different approach, without disclosing anything about photostrictive material or acoustic wave.
In response to applicant's argument that Duraffourg teaches a completely different subject with a different approach, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this particular case, Duraffourg is used to teach that the resonance of an electrostrictive material, in which Yanaka teaches, exhibits resonance frequencies depending on the material and dimensions when excited by a light source ([0127]). Thus, the teaching of Duraffourg is relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art in improving the system of Yanaka.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 22, and 24 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts on record fail to anticipate and/or suggest the combination of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior arts fail to teach, inter alia, the limitation of “a plurality of excitation elements, wherein the plurality of excitation elements are attached to the surface of the structure based on a pre-defined pattern”. The prior art on record, Yanaka et al. (JP 2000074886 A; IDS dated 12/19/2022 Foreign Patent Cite No. C), teaches an excitation element (FIG. 2) attached to a surface. Yanaka does not teach a pattern of (photostrictive) excitation elements as required by the claims.
Another relevant publication, Albert et al. (US Publication 2023/0028695), teaches a system for photodetection using photoinduced magnetoelectric effect (abstract). Albert further teaches a light source ([0055]), an excitation element comprising a photostrictive material ([0034]), wherein the photostrictive material has a resonance frequency ([0034]), and a detector configured to detect the acoustic wave ([0035]). In addition, Albert teaches a plurality of excitation elements, wherein the plurality of excitation elements are in a pre-defined pattern (FIG. 4). However, Albert is published after the effective filing date of the instant invention and is not considered a prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 (LiNbO3; [0013]) 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 has 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 has 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 ([0019]; Yanaka).
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights