NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected because-
(1) The drawings are objected to because Fig.4-5, 7, 9-10, 19A, 25A-25B, 26-27, 29A-29B, 31A-31D, 37A-37B of the drawings are blurred. The figures 4-8 of PGPub and the originally filed drawings are not readable. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (See MPEP 1.84 (l)).
(2) The drawings are objected to because of the font size of Fig.4-5, 7, 9-10, 19A, 25A-25B, 26-27, 29A-29B, 31A-31D, 37A-37B being too small. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see MPEP 1.84(p)).
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.
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 15-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is rejected as being indefinite as the recited limitation "a method, comprising operating a magnetic field sensor component," is confusing. While the claim is directed to a method, the body of the claim does not recite any method step. One of ordinary skill in the art fails to ascertain what method steps are used in the claimed invention to operate a magnetic field sensor component as the body of the claim is describing the apparatus only. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot fully determine the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected as they depend from claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to Claim 1, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a system comprising a magnetic field sensor component, comprising, in combination with the other recited elements, (ii) a sense electrode superposed over the piezoelectric portion and in mechanical communication with the piezoelectric portion, the sense electrode comprising a magnetostrictive material; and a tether portion extending from the plate portion, and the drive electrode being configured to be electrically driven so as to effect a strain modulation that upconverts a received magnetic field to a resonance band of the drive electrode.
Claims 2-14 are allowed by virtue of their dependence from Claim 1.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Alcheikh et al. (US 2023/0057869 A1) teaches a method for measuring a magnetic field with a micro-sensor system includes applying a direct current (I.sub.Th) to a curved micro-beam to control a stiffness of the curved micro-beam; placing the micro-sensor system into an external magnetic field (B); selecting with a controller, based on an expected value of the external magnetic field (B), a given resonant frequency of the micro-beam; measuring with a resonant frequency tracking device the given resonant frequency of the micro-beam; and calculating in the controller the external magnetic field (B), based on (1) the measured resonant frequency, (2) the applied current (I.sub.Th), and (3) calibration data stored in the controller. The calibration data is indicative of a dependency between a change of the selected resonant frequency and the external magnetic field [Abstract].
Nielson et al. (US 8,674,689 B1) teaches MEMS magnetometers with optically transduced resonator displacement are described herein. Improved sensitivity, crosstalk reduction, and extended dynamic range may be achieved with devices including a deflectable resonator suspended from the support, a first grating extending from the support and disposed over the resonator, a pair of drive electrodes to drive an alternating current through the resonator, and a second grating in the resonator overlapping the first grating to form a multi-layer grating having apertures that vary dimensionally in response to deflection occurring as the resonator mechanically resonates in a plane parallel to the first grating in the presence of a magnetic field as a function of the Lorentz force resulting from the alternating current. A plurality of such multi-layer gratings may be disposed across a length of the resonator to provide greater dynamic range and/or accommodate fabrication tolerances [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855