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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 in the reply filed 3 July 2026 is acknowledged and accordingly the claim objection thereto for the reasons outlined in the last office action mailed 3 April 2026 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Arabul discloses a substantially planar wafer structure having gratings formed on the wafer surface for acoustic metrology and thus the structural configuration disclosed in Arabul is fundamentally different from the elongates waveguide body recited in the claimed invention.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 recites only that the claimed waveguide must have an elongated body that is configured with a plurality of gratings along the body. Because Arabul discloses a body 100 which is elongated at least along both the vertical and horizontal direction in fig. 1 of Arabul and further includes a plurality of gratings 206 and 210, Arabul is still considered to meet the claimed limitations of a waveguide with an elongated body configured with a plurality of gratings.
Applicant further argues that Arabul employs GHz acoustic radiation whereas the claimed invention employs guided acoustic waves propagating longitudinally along an elongated waveguide body having a plurality of frequency-selective gratings. Applicant thus argues that Arabul neither discloses nor suggests an elongated waveguide body through which guided acoustic waves propagate, nor does it disclose or suggest a plurality of gratings configured to fully or partially reflect an acoustic wave on the waveguide at a different frequency than the other plurality of gratings as required by the claimed invention.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 requires only that the plurality of gratings is configured to fully or partially reflect an acoustic wave on the waveguide at a different frequency than the other plurality of gratings. In particular, ¶ 68 of Arabul notes that although emitted acoustic radiation may have a mean frequency in the GHz range, it is further noted that the excitation signal utilized by the transmitter transducers may comprise any waveform in which there is a temporal variation in one or more of a phase, amplitude and frequency (emphasis added) of the waveform, and thus the examiner contends that Arabul is still considered to teach the relevant limitation of a plurality of gratings configured to fully or partially reflect an acoustic wave on the waveguide at a different frequency than the other plurality of gratings.
Applicant thus concludes that Arabul fails to teach, suggest, or disclose a waveguide having an elongated body configured with a plurality of gratings along the body, an elongated three-dimensional waveguide body, such as a rod, wire, hollow tube, pipe, or shell described in paragraphs 65 and 87 of the as filed specification, and each of the plurality of gratings being configured to fully or partially reflect an acoustic wave on the waveguide at a different frequency than the other plurality of gratings.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that Arabul is considered to disclose a waveguide with an elongated body configured with a plurality of gratings along the body (at least exemplified by the elongated body 100 of Arabul as depicted in fig. 2). Although the examples of a rod, wire, hollow tube, pipe, or shell are not explicitly disclosed or suggested by Arabul, the examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 requires only that there is an elongated body configured with a plurality of gratings along the body and thus contends that Arabul fig. 2 and the disclosure in ¶ 68 still appropriately applies. Furthermore, as explained previously above, the examiner further contends that because Arabul ¶ 68 explicitly notes that the excitation signals emitted by transducers 110 may comprise any waveform in which there is a temporal variation in one or more of a phase, amplitude, and frequency of the waveform, Arabul is thus also considered to disclose each of the plurality of gratings being configured to fully or partially reflect an acoustic wave on the waveguide at a different frequency than the other plurality of gratings, as required by the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant further remarks that dependent claims 2-5 and 7-15 are allowable in the event that claims 1 and/or 6 is/are allowable over the cited prior art of record.
Regarding the above, the examiner agrees that in the event that claims 1 and/or 6 is/are held to be allowable over the cited prior art of record, each of the claims dependent thereupon would also be allowable at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon an allowable independent claim. However, because claims 1 and 6 are still considered to be properly rejected for the remarked reasons indicated above (and as outlined below), each of the claims dependent thereupon have been examined of their own merits and claims 2 and 6-15 are still considered to be properly rejected with claims 3-5 appearing to contain allowable subject matter for the reasons outlined below in further detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 1, 2, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arabul et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0085379 A1 (hereafter Arabul), prior art of record.
As to claim 1: Arabul discloses an apparatus (see fig. 2) for distributed physical parameter measurements of a surrounding environment (see ¶ 68), comprising:
a waveguide with an elongated body (100; see fig. 2 and ¶ 68) configured with a plurality of gratings (206, 210; see fig. 2 and ¶ 68) along the body (see fig. 2),
wherein each of the plurality of gratings (206, 210; fig. 2) is configured to fully or partially reflect an acoustic wave on the waveguide at a different frequency than the other plurality of gratings (see ¶ 68).
As to claim 2: Arabul discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of gratings (206, 210; fig. 2) comprises discontinuities configured to reflect one or more frequencies of acoustic waves (see ¶ 71 regarding the pitch of the gratings and also see ¶ 69-70 regarding the reflection of incoming acoustic radiation).
As to claim 6: Arabul discloses a method for measuring physical parameter measurements using an ultrasonic waveguide sensor (see ¶ 68 regarding waveguide 100 and see fig. 2), comprising:
receiving, at a signal processing system comprising a processor with memory, signals from an acoustic wave pulse reflected from a reflector of a waveguide (see ¶ 68 regarding reflection of acoustic radiation from gratings 206 and 210 as well as details in ¶ 31 regarding controller 109; while not explicitly disclosed, a processor and memory for carrying out the signal processing disclosed must necessarily be present);
processing, with instructions from the memory of the processor, frequency components in the reflected signals to determine a physical parameter at a location of the reflector (see ¶ 68 and 69 regarding the signal processing carried out regarding the reflected acoustic radiation).
As to claim 10: Arabul discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving signals reflected from a grating (206, 210; see ¶ 68) in the waveguide (see fig. 2 and ¶ 68).
As to claim 11: Arabul discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the receiving comprises receiving reflected signals from a reflector that is targeted to a specific frequency (see ¶ 68 regarding the different frequencies associated with each of the gratings 206, 210).
As to claim 12: Arabul discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising receiving, at the signal processing system (controller 109; see ¶ 68 and 31), signals from a plurality of acoustic wave pulses at different frequencies (see ¶ 68 regarding the different frequencies associated with each of the gratings 206, 210), wherein each of the plurality of reflected signals reflect from a different one of a plurality of reflectors on the waveguide (see fig. 2 and ¶ 68 regarding gratings 206 and 210).
As to claim 13: Arabul discloses the method of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of reflectors are selected to reflect a corresponding wavelength of each of the plurality of acoustic wave pulses (see ¶ 68 in combination with the details in ¶ 42 which notes that the acoustic radiation depends upon the pitch of the transducer array).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arabul et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0085379 A1 (hereafter Arabul), prior art of record, in view of Tosaya et al. US PG-PUB 2006/0094988 A1 (hereafter Tosaya), prior art of record.
As to claim 7: Arabul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 6, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the frequency components are detected from broadband excitation of the reflected signals.
However, Tosaya teaches that frequency components in ultrasonic systems may be detected from broadband excitation of reflected signals (see ¶ 62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arabul such that the frequency components are detected from broadband excitation of the reflected signals because such broadband excitation of reflected signals is an art recognized means of inducing vibration in an acoustic system and in particular for allowing for multiple modes to be utilized depending upon the acoustic application desired, such as suggested in Tosaya ¶ 62.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arabul et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0085379 A1 (hereafter Arabul), prior art of record, in view of Hartman et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0226705 A1 (hereafter Hartman), prior art of record.
As to claim 8: Arabul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 6, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the frequency components are detected from tuning a center frequency from a tone-burst excitation of the reflected signals.
However, Hartman teaches that frequency components may be detected from tuning a center frequency from a tone-burst excitation of reflected signals (see ¶ 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arabul such that the frequency components are detected from tuning a center frequency from a tone-burst excitation of reflected signals because such a detection is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of increasing signal to noise of a system by tuning to a resonant frequency of a material and reducing the effects of reflective interference in said system, such as suggested in ¶ 29 of Hartman. Accordingly, such frequency component detection can serve to improve the signal to noise ratio in Arabul’s method and corresponding system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arabul et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0085379 A1 (hereafter Arabul), prior art of record, in view of Larsen et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0273973 A1 (hereafter Larsen), prior art of record.
As to claim 9: Arabul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 6, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processing step composites processing the frequency components in the reflected signals to determine a temperature measurement at the location of the reflector.
However, Larsen teaches a processing step of processing frequency components in reflected signals to determine a temperature measurement at the location of a reflector (see ¶ 60 and further details in ¶ 70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arabul such that the processing step composites processing the frequency components in the reflected signals to determine a temperature measurement at the location of the reflector because such a temperature sensing method can make use of resonant frequency, phase measurements, and time of flight parameters in order to ascertain temperature measurements in hazardous and harsh environments, such as suggested in ¶ 70 and 72 of Larsen. Accordingly, such a processing step would be useful to Arabul because it would allow for temperature detection of harsh locations, such as further suggested in ¶ 73 of Larsen.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arabul et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0085379 A1 (hereafter Arabul), prior art of record, in view of Grossmann et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0242676 A1 (hereafter Grossmann), prior art of record.
As to claim 14: Arabul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 6, including a reflector and pulses (see ¶ 68 regarding reflection of acoustic radiation, that may include pulses, due to gratings 206 and 210) in a waveguide (100; see fig. 2), but does not explicitly teach:
transmitting the acoustic pulse wave to the waveguide, wherein a periodicity of the reflector is half of the wavelength of a targeted frequency for the reflected acoustic wave pulse of the reflector.
However, Grossmann teaches transmitting an acoustic pulse wave, wherein a periodicity of a reflector is half of the wavelength of a targeted frequency for the reflected acoustic wave pulse of the reflector (see ¶ 30 regarding the acoustic pulse utilized wherein a standing wave arises by using a half-wave wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arabul’s acoustic pulse wave to be transmitted to the waveguide, wherein a periodicity of the reflector is half of the wavelength of a targeted frequency for the reflected acoustic wave pulse of the reflector because a half wavelength is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of utilizing resonance to excite acoustic modes that are useful in measuring, such as suggested in Grossmann ¶ 30 and 31.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arabul et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0085379 A1 (hereafter Arabul), prior art of record, in view of Khuri-Yakub et al. US Pat 5,257,544 (hereafter Khuri), prior art of record.
As to claim 15: Arabul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 6, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising processing an amplitude and Q-factor of the reflected signals to determine a center frequency of the reflected signals.
However, Khuri teaches processing an amplitude and Q-factor of reflected signals to determine a center frequency of the reflected signals (see col. 4, lines 7-16, and col. 4, lines 23-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arabul’s processing step such that it includes processing an amplitude and Q-factor of the reflected signals to determine a center frequency of the reflected signals because such a determination can be useful in applying acoustic testing to test objects for the purpose of determining whether there is a defect in said test object, such as suggested in Khuri col. 5, lines 3-24.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan an apparatus wherein each of the discontinuities for each (emphasis added) of the plurality of gratings has an internal geometry configured according to fractions of an acoustic wave’s frequency and corresponding wavelength, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 2.
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan an apparatus comprising an ultrasonic adapter operationally connected to the ultrasonic transducer and (emphasis added) the waveguide, configured to facilitate an acoustic wave transfer between the waveguide and the transducer and to perform acoustic wave conversions, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim and those of parent claim 1.
In particular, while it is known from the prior art to design apparatuses such that they have an ultrasonic transducer configured to generate acoustic waves (see, e.g. ¶ 23 of Cowley US PG-PUB 2019/0380734 A1 - hereafter, Cowley) and an ultrasonic adapter (214 of Cowley; see ¶ 24) configured to facilitate an acoustic wave transfer (see Cowley ¶ 24), there does not appear to be a disclosure or suggestion available in any of the cited prior art of record that render obvious such an ultrasonic adapter being operationally connected to the ultrasonic transducer and (emphasis added) the waveguide which is also configured to facilitate acoustic wave transfer between the waveguide and the transducer and to perform required acoustic wave conversions, all of which are required in the instant claim.
As to claim 5: The claim depends directly from claim 4 and accordingly is also 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, at least by virtue of the instant claim’s dependency.
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 JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights