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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 29, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 22 was entered twice, the second claim 22 has been renumbered 23, and each claim thereafter was renumbered, incrementing the claim number.
Claims 22-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the second instance of claim 22, claim number needs to be renumbered to claim 23 in line 1.
Claims 23, 25, 35, 36, & 37 need to be renumbered to claims 24, 26, 36, 37, & 38 respectively, in line 1.
Claim 24 needs to be renumbered to claim 25 in line 1, and “The measuring assembly of claim 23,” in line 1, should read “The measuring assembly of claim 24”.
Claims 26-33 need to be renumbered to claims 27-34 (incrementing by one number), in line 1, and “The measuring assembly of claim 25,” in line 1 of each of these claims, should read “The measuring assembly of claim 26”.
Claim 34 needs to be renumbered to claim 35 in line 1, and “The measuring assembly of claim 33,” in line 1, should read “The measuring assembly of claim 34”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 16-24 be found allowable, claims 26-34 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 36-38 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 36-38 recite the limitation "the direction of” and “the gravitational force…" in line 4, 4, and 3 without prior disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these claim limitations. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the direction of” and “the gravitational force…” as “a direction of” and “a gravitational force”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-20, 25-29, & 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL Zimmels et al. (“Characterization of magnetic forces by means of suspended particles in paramagnetic solutions.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 12.4: 359-368, Pub. Date Jul. 31, 1976, hereinafter Zimmels).
Regarding independent claim 16, Zimmels, teaches:
A measuring assembly for determining a distribution of a magnetic gradient force (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]: describes an apparatus and method for characterizing magnetic forces (gradient forces) in a nonhomogeneous magnetic field), the measuring assembly comprising:
a probe body in which a hollow space is formed ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-24], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30]);
a probe suspension in the hollow space, wherein the probe suspension contains a liquid and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15]: glass is a standard diamagnetic material);
a measuring device configured to determine a distance of the at least one diamagnetic particle relative to a reference plane on the probe body ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 23-27], & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]: cathetometer is used to measure the position of the particles and the capillary axis serves as a reference plane/line on the probe body); and
a probe positioning unit configured to determine a geometric location of the hollow space and/or the at least one diamagnetic particle relative to a stationary reference location outside the probe body (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34]).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 16 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), further comprising:
an evaluation unit configured to determine, from the distance determined by the measuring device, a physical variable which describes a magnetic gradient force acting on the at least one diamagnetic particle (Fig. 2 & [Table I]; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 19-22 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 1-8, 22-23, & 36-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 13-20], [Pg. 361, Col. 1, ll. 8-20], & [Pg. 367, Col. 1, ll. 35-39]: describes an analytical method and plotting procedure used to convert raw data (particle positions) into force maps, the application of Equation (4) to the measured data constitutes the evaluation, the evaluation unit reads on the means (analytical framework, computational or analytical steps described in the Theory and Calculation sections) used to process the position data, as well as a mapping method described which converts the equilibrium position (distance) into the “iso-directional-force line” (physical variable describing the force)).
Regarding dependent claims 18 & 27, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claims 17 and 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to allocate distances determined by the measuring device at different geometric locations to position data determined by the probe positioning unit (Fig. 4; [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-23 & 30-32], [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-30], & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 1-2]).
Regarding dependents claim 19 & 28, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claims 16 and 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), wherein the probe suspension contains exactly one diamagnetic particle (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-7], [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34], [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 1]: Fig. 1 further illustrates exactly one particle per capillary tube) with a previously known density ([Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 36-39] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 9-15]: density is a known constant (pp) required for the force calculation (Eq. 4)).
Regarding dependent claims 20 & 29, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claims 16 and 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), wherein the probe suspension contains a plurality of diamagnetic particles (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-9], [Pg. 362, Col. 2, ll. 6-13], & [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 1-4]: Fig. 1 depicts a plurality of particles) of a similar type with a previously known density ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 9-15] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 9-16]).
Regarding independent claim 25, Zimmels, teaches:
A measuring assembly for determining a magnetic gradient force (Fig. 1 [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]), the measuring
assembly comprising:
a probe body in which a hollow space is formed ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-24], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30]: the capillary serves as the probe body, and the bore is the hollow space);
a probe suspension in the hollow space, wherein the probe suspension contains a liquid and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15]: glass is a standard diamagnetic material);
a measuring device configured to determine a distance of the at least one diamagnetic particle relative to a reference plane on the probe body ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 23-27], & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]: cathetometer is used to measure the position of the particles and the capillary axis serves as a reference plane/line on the probe body); and
an evaluation unit configured to determine, from the distance determined by the measuring device, a physical variable which describes a magnetic gradient force acting on the at least one diamagnetic particle (Fig. 2 & [Table I]; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 19-22 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 1-8, 22-23, & 36-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 13-20], [Pg. 361, Col. 1, ll. 8-20], & [Pg. 367, Col. 1, ll. 35-39]).
Regarding dependent claim 26, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1 [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), further comprising:
a probe positioning unit configured to determine a geometric location of the hollow space and/or the at least one diamagnetic particle relative to a stationary reference location outside the probe body (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34]).
Regarding independent claim 35, Zimmels, teaches:
A method for determining a distribution of a magnetic gradient force in a magnetic field using a measuring assembly ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]) that includes a probe body in which a hollow space is formed (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-24], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30]), a probe suspension in the hollow space and containing a liquid and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], & [Pg. 361, ll. 1-15]), and a measuring device ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 24-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 1-9]), the method comprising:
introducing the probe body into a magnetic field (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-21]), wherein the probe body is oriented in such a manner that the reference plane is perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 35-39] & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]: the particle’s distance (height) is measured along the Y-axis (gravity), the reference plane for this height measurement (e.g., the bottom of the capillary is perpendicular to the direction of gravity); and
determining a distance between the at least one diamagnetic particle and a reference plane on the probe body using the measuring device ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 23-27], & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]) for different positions of the probe body in the magnetic field relative to a stationary reference location outside the probe body (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34]).
Regarding independent claim 36, Zimmels, teaches:
A method for determining a distribution of a magnetic gradient force in a magnetic field ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]), the method comprising:
moving a probe body within a magnetic field ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-30]), wherein the probe body has a hollow space (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-24], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30])
and wherein the hollow space contains a liquid with at least one paramagnetic phase and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15]); and
determining a displacement of the at least one diamagnetic particle along an axis that is parallel to the direction of the gravitational force (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 35-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27]) relative to an initial position of the at least one diamagnetic particle in the hollow space ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 23-27], & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]) at different positions of the probe body in the magnetic field (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34]).
Regarding independent claim 37, Zimmels, teaches:
A method for determining a magnetic gradient force in a magnetic field ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]), the
method comprising:
positioning a probe body in the magnetic field ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-30]), wherein the probe body has a hollow space (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-24], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30]) and wherein the hollow space contains a liquid with at least one paramagnetic phase and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15]);
determining a displacement of the at least one diamagnetic particle along an axis that is parallel to the direction of the gravitational force (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 31-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], & [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 1-8]) relative to an initial position of the at least one diamagnetic particle in the hollow space ([Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 8-11], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 1-8]. & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]); and
determining, based on the displacement, a susceptibility of the at least one paramagnetic phase, and a difference in density between a density of the at least one diamagnetic particle and a density of the at least one paramagnetic phase ([Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 1-8, 25-26, & 31-44], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 11-20], [Pg. 361, Col. 1, ll. 1-20]: Equation (4) equates the magnetic gradient force variable to the density difference at the displacement equilibrium position y where the force balances the weight defined by the density different (pp-pf) and utilizes the susceptibility difference (xf-xp) for characterization (Eq.1, Eq. 9)), a physical variable which describes a magnetic gradient force on the at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract] & [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 6-13]).
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 21-22 & 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmels, in view of NPL Leong et al. (“Unified view of magnetic nanoparticle separation under magnetophoresis.” Langmuir 36.28: 8033-8055, Pub. Date Jun. 18, 2020, hereinafter Leong).
Regarding dependent claim 21 & 30, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 16 and 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]),
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle includes an organic and an inorganic dielectric material.
However, Leong, further teaches:
wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle includes an organic and an inorganic dielectric material ([Pg. 8036, Col. 2, ll. 12-19] & [Pg. 8047, Table 2]: Table 2 lists specific coating materials for particles, showing the combination of organic and inorganic components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the organic/inorganic material strategies taught by Leong (e.g., coating a silica/glass sphere with a polymer) in the apparatus of Zimmels to ensure the particles are wettable and have the precise known density required for the equilibrium measurements, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 22 & 31, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 16 and 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]), wherein the liquid contains at least two immiscible phases ([Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 2-7], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 9-16]: describes the apparatus using a liquid suspension but allows for varying the fluid composition to model different separations),
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
and wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle is dispersible in the at least two immiscible phases.
However, Leong, further teaches
and wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle is dispersible in the at least two immiscible phases ([Pg. 8046, Col. 1, ll. 11-16] & [Pg. 8054, Col. 2, Ref. (113) ]: teaches particles that interact with and disperse within multiphase systems such as amphiphilic particles (dispersible in both organic/oil and water/aqueous phases) or particles residing at the interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zimmels's device to design a separator for the petroleum industry (as suggested by the “beneficiation processes” in Zimmels), to substitute the single-phase paramagnetic liquid with the “oil-water” or “emulsion” fluids described by Leong, to accurately map the force distribution in that specific multiphase environment, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Claims 22 (duplicate claim number) & 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmels, in view of Barry et al. (US 2020/0064419 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 27, 2020, hereinafter Barry).
Regarding dependent claims 22 & 32, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claims 16 and 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]), wherein the measuring device includes a radiation source ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 24-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 1-2]: a cathetometer is an optical telescope system that requires ambient or directed light (radiation) to visualize the target) and the probe body are configured in such a manner that the radiation sensor detects part of the measuring radiation passing through the hollow space (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 21-26], & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 2-22]) along an axis that is perpendicular to the reference plane in a space-resolved manner ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13], & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, 22-27]: the cathetometer views the X-Y cross section (reference plan) while scanning or viewing perpendicular to the Z-axis, or measuring positions within the plan).
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
and a radiation sensor, wherein the radiation source is configured to emit a measuring radiation, and wherein the radiation sensor and/or part of the measuring radiation reflected in the hollow space
However, Barry, further teaches
and a radiation sensor (Fig. 3A; [Abstract], [0006]-[0007]), wherein the radiation source is configured to emit a measuring radiation ([0006] & [0041]), and wherein the radiation sensor ([0007] & [Claim 1]) and/or part of the measuring radiation reflected in the hollow space ([0042]-[0043] & [Claim 15])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the measuring assembly of Zimmels, which utilizes manual optical devices (cathetometers) and transparent fluid to map force lines by incorporating radiation sensor/source taught by Barry to improve automation and accuracy, Barry teaches that advanced readout methods (optical/microwave) provide “higher visibility and lower shot noise and higher signal-to-noise-ration”, and to modernize, by replacing a manual optical tool (cathetometer) with an automated radiation sensor such as a the photodetector or microwave detector of Barry, to further improve the accuracy and speed of the mapping procedure described by Zimmels, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Claims 23-24 & 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmels, in view of Walther et al. (US 2010/0295546 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 25, 2010, hereinafter Walther).
Regarding dependent claims 23 & 33, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claims 16 and 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 31-34], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]), in a space-resolved manner ([Abstract] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-23]).
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
wherein the measuring device includes an impedance measuring device configured to determine an electrical impedance of the probe suspension along an axis that is perpendicular to the reference plane
However, Walther, further teaches
wherein the measuring device includes an impedance measuring device ([0101]-[0102] & [0112]) configured to determine an electrical impedance of the probe suspension ([0102]) along an axis that is perpendicular to the reference plane ([0084] & [0112])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the measuring assembly of Zimmels, by incorporating the impedance-based detection means of Walther, providing a solution for detecting magnetic gradient forces using electrical readout (impedance analysis of a probe element) which allows for automation and higher precision compared to visual optical/inspection, replacing the optical detection of Zimmels and modernizing with the electrical impedance monitoring of Walther, showing that impedance measurement of a piezoelectric element is an effective way to detect the mechanical displacement of a structure subjected to a magnetic gradient force, the substitution yields the claimed impedance measuring device configured for space-resolved determination of force distribution, retaining the spatial mapping technology of Zimmels and applied to the electrical signals from sensors based on Walther’s principles, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claims 24 & 34, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claims 24 and 34 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 31-34], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]),
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
wherein the impedance measuring device includes at least one first electrode on a first side of the hollow space and at least two second electrodes on a second side of the hollow space, and wherein the first side and the second side are opposite one another in relation to a hollow space axis of the hollow space.
However, Walther, further teaches
wherein the impedance measuring device includes at least one first electrode on a first side of the hollow space (Fig. 5; [0097]: describes the “electrode of the excitation means 40”, specifically 40.2, located on the movable mass (first side of the gap)) and at least two second electrodes on a second side of the hollow space (Fig. 5; [0097]: describes the detection electrodes 35.4 and 35.1 located on the fixed support side (second side) facing the single electrode 40.2), and wherein the first side and the second side are opposite one another in relation to a hollow space axis of the hollow space (Fig. 5; [0097]: figure illustrates the electrodes are arranged across the gap (hollow space) between the moving mass 31 and the fixed frame 34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morley et al. (US2023/0400534A1) discloses a sensor using a field gradient in a given volume. NPL by Zimmels (“Measurement of Specific Gravity and Magnet Susceptibility of Particulate Materials by Levitation in Paramagnetic Solutions.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 13.2: 959-962, Pub. Date Mar. 1977) discloses a new method where specific gravity and magnetic susceptibility of small particles measured by levitation in paramagnetic solutions in a nonhomogeneous magnetic field. Elmegreen et al. (US2021/0025918A1) discloses an accelerometer based on diamagnetic levitation in a ring magnet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
12/22/2025
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 December 22, 2025