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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochergin et al. (US 2003/0133657 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kochergin ‘657, in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0102565 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim. With reference to claim 1, Kochergin ‘657 teaches a magnetometer, comprising: a core comprising a photonic material, wherein the core is configured to receive polarized light and maintain propagation of the polarized light that traverses therethrough (¶0020, ¶0060); a cladding that comprises a magneto-optic (MO) material, wherein the MO material is in contact with the core and surrounds at least part of the core, the core and the cladding configured to allow at least a portion of the polarized light to enter the cladding to interact with the polymer-based MO material in presence of an external magnetic field, and wherein measurements of polarization state of light after interaction with the magneto-optic (MO) material enable a determination of a strength of the magnetic field (¶0060, ¶0061).
However, Kochergin is silent with regards to the magneto-optic material being made from a polymer-based material.
Kim teaches magneto-optic material being made from a polymer-based material (¶0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kim with the magnetometer of Kochergin so as to improve the integration property (Kim ¶0012).
With reference to claim 5, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above further teaches the magnetometer is implemented as part of an integrated photonic chip (Kim, ¶0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kim with the Magnetometer of Kochergin ‘657 so as to improve the integration property (Kim ¶0012).
With reference to claim 12, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above further teaches a detection sensitivity of the magnetometer to the external magnetic field is tunable based on one or more of: a Verdet constant of the polymer-based MO material, dimensions of the core, dimensions of the cladding, or a quality factor of a resonator that is formed as part of the magnetometer (¶0097, ¶0098). With reference to claim 13, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above further teaches the external magnetic field is operable to rotate polarization of the polarized light through interactions with the polymer-based MO material and induce a loss in a detected output signal (¶0013).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochergin ‘657 as combined with Kim above as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janta-Polczynski et al. (US 2021/0063779 A1), hereinafter referred to as Janta-Polczynski. With reference to claim 2, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above teaches all that is required however is silent about the core comprises a silicon-based material. Janta-Polczynski teaches the core comprises a silicon-based material (¶0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Janta-Polczynski with the magnetometer of Kochergin ‘657 as combined above so as to enhance the Faraday rotation (Janta-Polczynski ¶0040). With reference to claim 3, Janta-Polczynski further teaches the silicon-based material comprises silicon nitride (Si3N4) (¶0045). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochergin ‘657 as combined above with Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2012/0001625 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamada. Kochergin ‘657 as combined above is silent with regards to the polymer-based MO material has a Verdet constant in the range 2x103 and 2x106. Yamada teaches the polymer-based MO material has a Verdet constant in the range 2x103 and 2x106 (¶0031, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Verdet with the Magnetometer of Kochergin ‘657 as combined above so as to improve sensitivity.
Claim(s) 14-16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochergin ‘657, in view of Kim, in further view of Alberto et al. (“Optical Fiber Magnetic Field Sensors Based on Magnetic Fluid: A Review”), hereinafter referred to as Alberto.
With reference to claim 14, Kochergin ‘657 teaches A method for measuring a magnetic field using a magnetometer, the method comprising: receiving polarized light at the magnetometer, wherein the magnetometer includes an optical resonator that is operable at a resonant frequency or wavelength in the absence of an external magnetic field (¶0020, ¶0060), the magnetometer comprising: a core comprising a photonic material, wherein the core is configured to receive the polarized light and maintain propagation of the polarized light that traverses therethrough (¶0020, ¶0060); and a cladding that comprises a magneto-optic (MO) material, wherein MO material is in contact with the core and surrounds at least part of the core, the core and the cladding configured to allow at least a portion of the polarized light to enter the cladding to interact with the MO material (¶0060, ¶0061); exposing the magnetometer to the external magnetic field (¶0074); measuring light that is output from the optical resonator in the presence of the external magnetic field to obtain a second output power value (¶0074); and determining a strength of the external magnetic field based on differing values of the first output power value and the second output power value (¶0007).
However, Kochergin is silent with regards to the magneto-optic material being made from a polymer-based material.
Kim teaches magneto-optic material being made from a polymer-based material (¶0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kim with the magnetometer of Kochergin so as to improve the integration property (Kim ¶0012).
However, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above is silent with regards to positioning an operating wavelength of the resonator on resonance to obtain a first output power value from the optical resonator.
Alberto teaches positioning an operating wavelength of the resonator on resonance to obtain a first output power value from the optical resonator (Fig. 4, a temperature-independent magnetic field sensor. The design used, based on a thin core fiber sandwiched in the upstream of an FPG, is schematically shown in Fig. 3. The magnetic field is obtained from the variation of the optical power of the cladding mode resonances, and the temperature is determined by the core mode wavelength shift). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Alberto with the method of Kochergin ‘657 as combined above so as to provide a less fragile system (Alberto, page 4).
With reference to claim 15 Kochergin ‘657 as combined above further teaches the strength of the external magnetic field is proportional to a difference in the first output power value and the second output power value (Alberto, Fig. 4, a temperature-independent magnetic field sensor. The design used, based on a thin core fiber sandwiched in the upstream of an FPG, is schematically shown in Fig. 3. The magnetic field is obtained from the variation of the optical power of the cladding mode resonances, and the temperature is determined by the core mode wavelength shift).
With reference to claim 16, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above further teaches positioning the operating wavelength of the resonator on resonance is associated with obtaining a measured output power value, from the optical resonator in the absence of the external magnetic field, that is minimized (¶0061). With reference to claim 20, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above further teaches the magnetometer is part of an integrated photonic chip (Kim, ¶0031).
With reference to claim 21, Kochergin ‘657 as combined above further teaches a detection sensitivity of the magnetometer to the external magnetic field is based on one or more of: a Verdet constant of the polymer-based MO material, dimensions of the core, dimensions of the cladding or a quality factor of the optical (¶0097).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochergin ‘657 as combined with Kim as further combined with Alberto as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kochergin et al. (US 2006/0103380 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kochergin ‘380. Kochergin ‘657 as combined above teaches all that is required, however is silent with regards to the optical resonator is one of a ring or a disc resonator. Kochergin ‘380 teaches the optical resonator is one of a ring or a disc resonator (¶0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kochergin ‘380 with the method of Kochergin ‘657 as combined above so as to improve connectability of system components (Kochergin ‘380 ¶0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 18 and 19 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: The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed " magnetometer is configured as a resonator operable at a resonant frequency with a first quality factor, and wherein a change in the external magnetic field causes the first quality factor to change to a second quality factor" in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 6-11.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed " optical resonator is non-circularly symmetric, and the method further comprises: changing a relative orientation of the optical resonator and the external magnetic field; measuring light that is output from the optical resonator in the presence of the external magnetic field to obtain a third output power value; and determining a direction of the external magnetic field based on at least the second and the third output power values" in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 18 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luzod (US 10,330,744 B2) teaches a magnetometer with a waveguide.
Bi et al. (US 7,995,893 B2) teach a magnetic material for magneto-optical isolator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY H CURRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/GREGORY H CURRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852