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 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues As amended, Claim 1 is patentable over Aoshima in view of Gu and Sato because the combination of Aoshima, Gu, and Sato does not teach, at least, a first electrode coated by a first layer of electrical insulator, and the second electrode coated by a second layer of electrical insulator. It is well-settled that a combination of references must teach all the limitations of a claim to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sato discloses a first electrode (5, Fig. 1) coated by a first layer of electrical insulator (3, Fig. 1) , and the second electrode (11, Fig. 1) coated by a second layer of electrical insulator (3, Fig. 1) . In addition , note par. [0022] The insulation layer 3 is provided between the primary electrode 5 and the secondary electrode 11. The insulation layer 3 is integrally formed with the primary electrode 5 and the secondary electrode 11 being inserted. The examiner broadly interprets the insulation layer as being three dimensional and that each side of the insulation layer is a layer (left side layer, right side layer, top side layer, bottom side layer). The insulation layer is integrally formed with the electrodes therefore suggesting that the electrodes are coated by the layers (sides) of the insulator.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the metes and bounds of claim 13 are unclear because claim 13 is depending on a cancelled claim. It is unclear as to which claim 13 depends from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoshima et al. (US 4864220) in view of Gu et al. (US 20180067147) in view of Sato et al. (US 20100109642).
Regarding claim 1, Aoshima et al. teach An electrical voltage measurement device, comprising:
at least one microelectromechanical device (12, 13, Fig. 1) and comprising:
a semitransparent material element (12, electro optical material ) with a variable n refractive index according to an electrical voltage applied to said element; (The refractive index of the electro-optic material 12 is changed by a voltage developed in a selected area of an object under test, as a result of which the effective optical path length in the electro-optic material 12 is changed. ,Note column 5, lines 33-37)
a first electrode (electrode 13, Fig. 1) configured to be connected to an anode of an electrical voltage source and electrically connected to a first point of the semitransparent material element (12, Fig. 1);
a second electrode (13 on left side of 12, Fig. 1) configured to be connected to a cathode of said electrical voltage source and electrically connected to a second point of the semitransparent material element, (Note 12, par. 1)
wherein the semitransparent material element (Note 12, Fig. 1) is configured to receive an electrical voltage from the electrical voltage source through the first electrode and/or the second electrode, causing a variation Δn(V) in a refractive index n proportional to said electrical voltage; (suggested by The refractive index of the electro-optic material 12 is changed by a voltage developed in a selected area of an object under test, as a result of which the effective optical path length in the electro-optic material 12 is changed.) (Note column 5, lines 33-37) and
an optical device (light source 53, Fig. 1) configured to:
transmit an optical signal through the semitransparent material element; (Note light travelling from light source 53 to electro optic material 12, Fig. 1)
capture at least one optical signal modified by an interaction of the optical signal with the semitransparent material element; (Note Examiner interprets the reflection of the light from mirror 14 as capturing the interaction of the optical signal.)
Aoshima et al. does not teach
detect an amplitude or phase modulation of the modified optical signal that is proportional to the variation Δn(V) in the refractive index n;
obtain interference patterns based on at least said amplitude or phase modulation of the optical signal; and
calculate a value of the electrical voltage of the electrical voltage source based on the interference patterns.
Gu et al. teach detect an amplitude or phase modulation of the modified optical signal that is proportional to the variation Δn(V) in the refractive index n; ([0004] Modulation phase detection (MPD) [2] is a powerful interrogation technique to measure phase shift in an optical system. MPD sensors can e.g. be implemented in a reciprocal configuration, either in the form of a Sagnac interferometer or in a reflective form, in order to cancel phase shifts from additional birefringent elements in the system (such as PM fibers or the phase modulator crystal), which may drift slowly, e.g. with temperature change or mechanical disturbance.)
obtain interference patterns based on at least said amplitude or phase modulation of the optical signal; ([0051] MPD optoelectronics module 1 is adapted to measure the interference contrast k as well as the principal value pv of the total phase shift φ between the two polarizations returning from PM fiber 2, i.e. φ=pv(φ)=φ mod 2π.) and (Note MPD detects phase shift (phase modulation) .
calculate a value of the electrical voltage of the electrical voltage source based on the interference patterns. (The interference contrast as well as a principal value of the total phase shift between said polarizations are measured and converted to a complex value having an absolute value equal to the contrast and a phase equal to the principal value. This complex value is offset and scaled using calibration values in order to calculate a compensated complex value. The voltage is derived from the compensated complex value.) Note abstract.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoshima et al. to include the teaching of detect an amplitude or phase modulation of the modified optical signal that is proportional to the variation Δn(V) in the refractive index n; obtain interference patterns based on at least said amplitude or phase modulation of the optical signal; and calculate a value of the electrical voltage of the electrical voltage source based on the interference patterns to provide a device that has a large measurement range that are less sensitive to misalignments and/or variations of the rotation in the Faraday rotator. (Note Gu et al. par. 0011)
Aoshimm et al. does not teach wherein the first electrode is coated by a first layer of electrical insulator and the second electrode is coated by a second layer of electrical insulator.
Sato et al. teach wherein the first electrode (11, Fig. 1, par. 0019) is coated by a first layer of electrical insulator (insulation layer 3, Fig.1, par. 0019) and the second electrode (5, Fig. 1, par. 0019) is coated by a second layer of electrical insulator. (9, Fig. 1, par. 0019)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoshima et al. to include the teaching of wherein the first electrode is coated by a first layer of electrical insulator and the second electrode is coated by a second layer of electrical insulator to prevent current from flowing into unintended areas.
Regarding claim 14, Aoshima et al. does not teach at least one voltage source.
Gu et al. teach at least one voltage source. (Note [0085] The values of K.sub.0 (which is complex valued), r.sub.1 and r.sub.2 (both of which are real-valued) are calibration values, which are determined in a calibration process. For example, in this process, one may vary the applied voltage V in a certain range, and record the complex output K(V) at the same time.) Applied voltage is interpreted as implicitly teaching a voltage source.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoshima et al. to include the teaching of at least one electrical voltage source to supply power for the device to function.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoshima et al. (US 4864220) in view of Gu et al. (US 20180067147) in view of Sato et al. (US 20100109642) further in view of Shan et al. (US 20130271113).
Aoshima et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations. Regarding claim 10, Aoshima et al. does not teach wherein the microelectromechanical device is a MEMS.
Shan et al. teach wherein the microelectromechanical device is a MEMS. (Note claim 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoshima et al. o include the teaching of wherein the microelectromechanical device is a MEMS to provide low power consumption.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoshima et al. (US 4864220) in view of Gu et al. (US 20180067147) in view of Sato et al. (US 20100109642) further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 107421913).
Aoshima et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Aoshima et al. does not teach wherein the semitransparent material element comprises a graphene layer.
Zhu et al. teach wherein the semitransparent material element comprises a graphene layer. (Note abstract)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoshima et al. to include the teaching of wherein the semitransparent material element comprises a graphene layer to provide a faster response time. (Note Zhu et al. par. 0034)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoshima et al. (US 4864220) in view of Gu et al. (US 20180067147) in view of Sato et al. (US 20100109642) further in view of Cha et al. (US 20230316966).
Aoshima et al. as modified teach wherein the first layer of electrical insulator and the second layer of electrical insulator. (See rejection of claim 12)
Aoshima et al. does not teach wherein the first layer of electrical insulator and the second layer of electrical insulator comprise aluminum oxide.
Cha et al. teach the electrical insulator comprise aluminum oxide. (Note Cha et al. par. 0084)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoshima et al. to include the teaching of teach the electrical insulators comprise aluminum oxide to provide a resistance to high temperature.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoshima et al. (US 4864220) in view of Gu et al. (US 20180067147) in view of Sato et al. (US 20100109642) further in view of Skala et al. (US 20070231641).
Aoshima et al. does teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Aoshima et al. does not teach wherein the electrical voltage source is a fuel cell or a battery.
Skala et al. teach wherein the electrical voltage source is a fuel cell or a battery. (Note abstract)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoshima et al. to include the teaching of the electrical voltage source is a fuel cell or a battery to provide power to the optical devices. (Note Skala et al. abstract)
Prior art:
Ikehashi (US 8503157) teach a MEMS device that includes first and second lower electrodes on a substrate. The MEMS device also includes a first driving electrode forming a capacitance element having a first capacitance between the first lower electrode and the first driving electrode, a second driving electrode forming a capacitance element having a second capacitance between the second lower electrode and the second driving electrode, and an upper electrode supported in midair above the driving electrodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are allowed.
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding independent claims 2 and 5 , patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features discussed on page 8 of Non Final Rejection mailed 8/21/2025.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858