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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on November 17, 2023.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C.
119 (a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
Title is objected to for failure to be sufficiently descriptive.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the
presence of all possible minor errors. The applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the word limit
and includes references to the drawings. Correction is required.
See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-28, 30, 32, 36, 38, and 40-52 are objected to because of the following
informalities:
Claim 27
In line 2, “the actuator” should be --the piezoelectric actuator--
In lines 4 and 6, “in the case that” should be --when--
In line 5, “the actuator” should be --the single actuator--
In lines 7-8, “the actuators” should be --the plurality of actuators--
In lines 10-12, “the or a” should be --the--
Claim 28
In line 2, “the frequency” should be --a frequency--
In lines 2-3, “the electrical sinusoidal voltage” should be --the electrical voltage--
Claim 30
In line 2, “the same output stage” should be --the output stage--
Claim 32
In line 5, “the same integrated circuit” should be --the integrated circuit--
Claim 36
“the transmission” should be --a transmission--
Claim 38
In lines 1-2, “the part” should be --a part--
In line 3, “the same actuator” should be --the actuator--
Claim 40
In line 5, “the emergence” should be --a emergence--
In line 5, “the disappearance” should be --a disappearance--
In line 5, “the change” should be --a change--
Claim 41
In line 1, “the frequency” should be --a frequency--
In lines 2-3, “the current value” should be –a current value--
In line 3, “the phase angle value” should be –a phase angle value--
In line 3, “the current” should be --a current--
In lines 3-4, “the voltage” should be --a voltage--
In line 4, “the form” should be --a form--
In line 5, “the series” should be --a series--
In lines 5-6, “the function” should be --a function--
In line 6, “the impedance |Z|” should be --an impedance |Z|--
In line 6, “the impedance the” should be --the impedance |Z| the--
In lines 6-7, “the presence” should be --a presence--
In line 7, “the change” should be --a change--
Claim 42
In line 1, “the function” should be --a function--
In line 6, “the impedance amount |Z|” should be --an impedance amount |Z|--
In line 2, “the frequency” should be --a frequency--
In line 2, “the phase angle” should be –a phase angle--
In line 3, “the presence” should be --a presence--
In line 3, “the change” should be --a change--
Claim 43
In lines 1-2, “the initial frequency value” should be --an initial frequency value--
In lines 2-3, “the lowest detectable resonance frequency value” should be --a lowest detectable resonance frequency value--
In line 3, “the final frequency value” should be --a final frequency value--
In line 4, “the resonance frequency value” should be --a resonance frequency value--
In line 4, “the highest detectable resonance frequency value” should be --a highest detectable resonance frequency value--
In line 6, “the different types” should be --different types--
Claim 44
In lines 1-2, “the initial frequency value” should be --an initial frequency value--
In lines 2-3, “the lowest detectable resonance frequency value” should be --a lowest detectable resonance frequency value--
In line 3, “the final frequency value” should be --a final frequency value--
In line 4, “the resonance frequency value” should be --a resonance frequency value--
In lines 4-5, “the actuator length” should be --an actuator length--
Claim 45
In line 1, “the frequency” should be --a frequency--
In line 2, “the initial” should be --an initial value--
In line 2, “the final value” should be --a final value--
Claim 46
In line 2, “the current” should be --a current--
In line 3, “the measurement results” should be --measurement results--
In line 4, “the purpose” should be --a purpose--
Claim 47
In lines 1-2, “the frequency value” should be --a frequency value--
In line 3, “said resonance frequency” should be –a resonance frequency--
In lines 4-5, “the decay” should be –a decay--
In line 5, “the purpose” should be --a purpose--
In line 6, “the recorded decay curve” should be --a recorded decay curve--
Claim 48
In lines 1-2, “the frequency value” should be --a frequency value--
In line 3, “the decay behavior” should be --a decay behavior--
In line 4, “the purpose” should be --a purpose--
Claim 49
In lines 1-2, “the frequency value” should be --a frequency value--
In line 3, “the excitation” should be –an excitation--
In line 3, “the purpose” should be --a purpose--
In line 4, “the internal resistance Ri = UA/IAr” should be –an internal resistance Ri = UA/IAr--
In line 5, “the internal resistance” should be --the internal resistance Ri = UA/IAr--
Claim 50
In lines 1-2, “the frequency value” should be --a frequency value--
In lines 2-3, “the reflected pulse” should be --a reflected pulse--
Claim 51
In line 1, “the detection” should be --detection--
In line 2, “the normal operating mode” should be --a normal operating mode--
Claim 52
In line 1, “the analysis” should be --an analysis--
In line 2, “the recorded resonance image” should be --a recorded resonance image--
In line 2, “the operator” should be –an operator--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 50, it is unclear whether “substantially” refers to a fourth, a third, half, more than half, almost all, or some other quantity. The specification does not provide some standard for measuring “substantially.” One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the prior art and the status of the art, would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of “substantially” from the drawings alone. The specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim in paragraphs [0089] and [0101] but the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification because the specification does not provide a standard for measuring “substantially.” The examiner has understood the term to designate entirely.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27-30, 32-41, 43-45, and 47-51 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C.
102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lal et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140355381; hereinafter “Lal”).
Regarding claim 27, Lal discloses a positioning device, comprising a positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) with a piezoelectric actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]), a drive element (Fig. 1B, ions driven by piezoelectric transducer; [0010]) movable (Figs. 1B/9-10/15;; [0010]) by the actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) and provided for coupling (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, coupled via controller; [0010]) to an element to be positioned (Fig. 15, MEMS mirrors), and a controller (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits controlling device), characterized in that the positioning device (Figs. 1B/1D) comprises a defect analysis device (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107] – arrays and sonar integrated devices) for detecting defects (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107]) in the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]), wherein in the case that the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) comprises a single actuator (Figs. 1/10, a single piezoelectric actuator-transducer allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]), the actuator (Figs. 1/10, a single piezoelectric actuator-transducer allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) comprises a generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of acoustic ultrasonic waves (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and in the case that the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) comprises a plurality of actuators (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]), at least one of the actuators (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) comprises at least one generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of ultrasonic acoustic waves (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and at least another one of the actuators (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) comprises at least one receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of ultrasonic acoustic waves (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]), and wherein the defect analysis device (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107] – arrays and sonar integrated devices) comprises a measurement signal generator (Fig. 3C) for generating an electric voltage for exciting the generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and a resonance analyzer (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) for analyzing (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) an electric signal (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097] - receiver output) generated (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) by the receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 28, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that the measurement signal generator (Fig. 3C) is configured to cause (Fig. 3C) the frequency (Fig. 3C) of the electrical sinusoidal voltage (Fig. 3C) to change periodically (Fig. 3C) from an initial(Fig. 3C) to a final value (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 29, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that the defect analysis device (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107] – arrays and sonar integrated devices) comprises a broadband linear or clocked output voltage (Fig. 7A; [0140]) or current amplifier.
Regarding claim 30, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that the controller (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits controlling device) comprises an output stage (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits output stage driving unit positioning MEMS mirrors) for driving ((Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits)) the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]), the same output stage (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits output stage driving unit positioning MEMS mirrors) also serving to electrically supply (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits output stage output) the measurement signal generator (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 32, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that the controller (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits controlling device) comprises a position controller (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits controlling position of MEMS mirrors; [0059]) and a trajectory and signal generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits generating trajectory and signal) or, wherein the position controller (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits controlling position of MEMS mirrors; [0059]) or the trajectory and signal generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15, logic circuits generating trajectory and signal) are realized by means (Fig. 1B; [0089]) of an integrated circuit (Fig. 1B; [0089]), and the measurement signal generator (Fig. 3C) and the resonance analyzer (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) are realized as a program module (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145] – program module in IC) in the same integrated circuit (Fig. 1B; [0089]).
Regarding claim 33, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that the resonance analyzer (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) comprises a data interface (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0104] – “The added interconnect capability can allow the programmers to use ultra-high fan-out and fan-in capabilities, e.g., which is often needed to implement algorithms in associative pattern recognition algorithms, such as in applications including face or feature recognition in image processing.”) to a display screen (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0104]) for a visual control (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0104]) of a resonance image (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0104]).
Regarding claim 34, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that the defect analysis device (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107] – arrays and sonar integrated devices) comprises a current sensor (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0151]) for detecting (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0151]) an electrical signal (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0151]) generated by a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]), wherein a resistor (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0098]), a transistor (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0098]), a transformer, an optocoupler or an operational amplifier is used (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0151]) for detecting (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0151]) a current (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0151]).
Regarding claim 35, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducer allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) is designed as a multilayer (Fig. 9) piezoelectric actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]).
Regarding claim 36, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) is arranged between (Figs. 1/10) solid-state joints (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0105] – chip-to-chip interconnects etc.), and the transmission (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0109]) of a deflection (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0109]) of the actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) to the drive element (Fig. 1B, ions driven by piezoelectric transducer; [0010]) is realized without friction (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0105] – chip-to-chip interconnects etc.) by elastic deformation (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0105] – chip-to-chip interconnects etc.) of the solid- state joints (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0105] – chip-to-chip interconnects etc.).
Regarding claim 37, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that a generator or a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) forms part of an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) and has no actuating function actuator (Figs. 1/10, part of piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing; [0147]).
Regarding claim 38, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 37, characterized in that the part of an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) forming a generator or a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) is connected (Figs. 1B/9-10/15) to the remaining part (Figs. 1/10, remaining part of piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) of the same actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) by an acoustic connection (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) with a low acoustic resistance (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 39, Lal discloses the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that a generator is formed in one actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) and a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) is formed in another and spaced actuator (Figs. 1/10, another spaced piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]).
Regarding claim 40, Lal discloses a method for operating the positioning device according to according to claim 27, wherein a generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) is periodically supplied with an electrical measuring signal (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of the measuring signal generator (Fig. 3C) in the form of an electrical alternating voltage (Fig. 3C), and mechanical resonances (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) are periodically picked up (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) with a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]), and by means of the resonance analyzer (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) the emergence (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) of new or the disappearance or the change of previously existing resonances (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) are detected (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) and analyzed (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0145]) for predicting or detecting defects (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107] – arrays and sonar integrated devices) in the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]).
Regarding claim 41, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the frequency (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) is changed (Fig. 3C) from an initial (Fig. 3C) to a final value (Fig. 3C), and thereby the current value (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) flowing through (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and the phase angle value (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) between (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0137]) the current (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and the voltage (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) are measured (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) in the form of a dependence (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) on the frequency (Fig. 3C) and recorded together(Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) with the voltage (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]), and from the series of measurements (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0137]) for detecting resonances (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) the function of the impedance |Z| (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) is formed from the frequency (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]), and from the impedance (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) the presence of new (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0137]) or the change (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0137]) or absence (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0137]) of previously detected mechanical resonances (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) is determined (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]).
Regarding claim 43, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the initial frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) is equal (Fig. 3C) to the lowest detectable resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) of an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) and the final frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) is equal (Fig. 3C) to the resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the highest measurable resonance (Fig. 3C) of an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]), wherein both the lowest resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) and the highest resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) belong (Fig. 3C) to the different types (Fig. 3C) of ultrasonic acoustic waves (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 44, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the initial frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) is equal to the lowest resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) of an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]) determined (Fig. 3C) by its length (Fig. 3C), and the final frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) is equal (Fig. 3C) to twice the resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) determined (Fig. 3C) by half (Fig. 3C) the actuator length (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]).
Regarding claim 45, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the frequency (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal(Fig. 3C) is logarithmically varied (Fig. 3C) from the initial (Fig. 3C) to the final value (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 47, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal(Fig. 3C) is equal to a measurable resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) of an actuator (Figs. 1/10, piezoelectric actuator-transducers allowing resonant sensing and actuation; [0147]), said resonance frequency (Fig. 3C) belonging to the various types (Fig. 3C) of ultrasonic acoustic waves (Fig. 3C), and wherein after a short excitation (Fig. 3C) of a generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) at the resonance frequency (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]), the decay (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) is recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0092]; [0192]) via a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and thereafter (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]), for the purpose of detecting (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) a resonance change (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]), the recorded decay curve (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0092]; [0120]; [0151]) is compared (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]; [0159]; [0175]; [0214]) with a decay curve (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]) recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0092]; [0120]; [0151]) at an earlier time (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]).
Regarding claim 48, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) is equal to a measurable resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]), wherein after (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) a short excitation (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of a generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) the decay behavior (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) is recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0092]; [0120]; [0151]) for the purpose of detecting (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]) a resonance change (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]) and compared (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]; [0159]; [0175]; [0214]) with a decay behavior(Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]) recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0092]; [0120]; [0151]) at an earlier time (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0120]; [0151]).
Regarding claim 49, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) is equal(Fig. 3C) to at least one measurable resonance frequency value (Fig. 3C) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]), wherein during (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) the excitation (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) of a generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) for the purpose of detecting (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) at least one resonance change (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]), the internal resistance Ri=UA/IAr (Fig. 12; [0180) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) is determined (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) and compared (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]; [0159]; [0175]; [0214]) with a value (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) of the internal resistance ( Fig. 12; [0180) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]) recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) at an earlier time (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 50, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the frequency value (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of the measurement signal (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) is substantially equal(Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) to a measurable resonance frequency value (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]), and in that during (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) or after (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) a short excitation (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of a generator (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) the reflected pulse (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) is picked up (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) by a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]), parameters (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) of the reflected pulse (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) being recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) for detecting (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) a resonance change (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and being compared (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0159]; [0175]; [0214]) with parameters recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]) at an earlier time (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0092]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 51, Lal discloses the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the detection of resonances (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107]) and the defect analysis (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107]) are performed (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107]) in the normal operating mode (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107])of the positioning unit (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0192]).
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 of this title, 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 31 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Lal in view of Lips (U.S. Publication No. 20180143283; hereinafter “Lips”).
Regarding claim 31, Lal teaches the positioning device according to claim 27, characterized in that the defect analysis device (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0097]; [0107] – arrays and sonar integrated devices). Lal does not teach a white noise generator.
Lips, however , does teach a white noise generator ( [0028] – filter).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lal to include the white noise generator of Lips because it would provide noise filtering thereby improving the number of degrees of freedom of the noise (Lips [0028]).
Regarding claim 46, Lal teaches the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the measurement signal (Fig. 3C) and the current flowing (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) through a receiver (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) is measured (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) and recorded (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]), the measurement results (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]) . Lal does not teach white noise and Fourier transformation or a discrete or a fast Fourier transformation for the purpose of detecting resonances that are newly emerging or have disappeared.
Lips, however, does teach white noise ( [0028] – filter) and Fourier transformation ([0039]) or a discrete or a fast Fourier transformation for the purpose of detecting resonances ([0039]) that are newly emerging ([0039]) or have disappeared ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lal to include the white noise and Fourier transformation of Lips because it would provide noise filtering thereby improving the number of degrees of freedom of the noise and noise extraction (Lips [0028]; [0039]).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lal in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20170328861; hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 42, Lal teaches the method according to claim 40, characterized in that the function (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) of the impedance amount |Z| (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) from the frequency (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) with the phase angle (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]), from which the presence (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) of new (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) or the change (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) or the absence (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) of previously detected (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) mechanical resonances (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]) is determined (Figs. 1B/9-10/15; [0012]; [0097]; [0145]). . Lal does not teach a Nyquist diagram.
Wang, however , does teach a Nyquist diagram (16A-B).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lal to include the Nyquist diagram of Wang because it would enable real and imaginary impedance calculation and plotting for each frequency thereby improving ease of identification of the impedance at the inflection point and may define an intercept (Wang [0182]).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lal in
view of Zhao (U.S. Publication No. 20210244374; hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 52, Lal teaches the method according to claim 40. Lal does not teach the analysis of the recorded resonance image is performed visually by the operator.
Zhao, however, does teach the analysis of the recorded resonance image is performed visually by the operator ([0208]-[0209]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lal to include the visual operator analysis of Zhao because it would provide a combination of imaging modalities thereby improving quantity and quality of data available for study of region of interest (Zhao [0208]-[0209]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MONICA MATA
whose telephone number is (571) 272-8782. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Dedei Hammond, can be reached on (571) 270-7938. 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 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 system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MONICA MATA/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
18 September 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights