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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 12-13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature titled, “Levitation Characteristics Analysis of a Diamagnetically Stabilized Levitation Structure” (herein Cheng).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches A gravimeter (Fig. 1A, p. 3-4 teaches resultant force based on gravity), comprising:
at least a first diamagnetic material (HOPG highly oriented pyrolytic graphite, p. 2);
a float magnet disposed longitudinally separate from the first diamagnetic material (floating magnet, p. 2, Fig. 1; and
a lift magnet disposed longitudinally from the float magnet with the first diamagnetic material disposed between the lift magnet and the float magnet, the lift magnet configured to levitate the float magnet with a magnetic force that opposes a gravitational force on the float magnet while the first diamagnetic material exerts a repulsive force on the float magnet (lifting magnet, p. 2, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches wherein the lift magnet is disposed above the float magnet and exerts an attractive force on the float magnet (see corresponding positions in Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches wherein the lift magnet opposes a gravitational force and a repulsive force from first diamagnetic material (Fig. 1 teaches lifting magnet opposing gravitational force due to inherent repel properties from HOPG material).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches wherein the lift magnet is disposed below the float magnet and exerts a repulsive force on the float magnet (Fig. 1a teaches two magnets, where lifting magnet may correspond to lower magnet and floating magnet may correspond to float magnet).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches a second diamagnetic material, the first diamagnetic material disposed longitudinally separate from the second diamagnetic material (lower HOPG sheet, Fig. 1a), and the float magnet configured to levitate longitudinally between the first diamagnetic material and the second diamagnetic material in conjunction with the lift magnet (Fig. 1a shows floating magnet between upper and lower HOPG sheets).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches wherein the lift magnet is disposed above the float magnet and exerts an attractive force on the float magnet (Fig. 1a shows lifting magnet above floating magnet, with corresponding N pole facing S pole, i.e. indicating attractive force).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches wherein the lift magnet is disposed below the float magnet and exerts a repulsive force on the float magnet (Fig. 1a teaches two magnets, where lifting magnet may correspond to lower magnet and floating magnet may correspond to float magnet, where the HOPG sheet repels both in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng teaches wherein the diamagnetic material is formed into a diamagnetic plate having a greater cross-sectional dimension than thickness (Fig. 6a teaches instance where corresponding cross-sectional width of HOPG sheet is greater than its thickness).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng teaches wherein the diamagnetic material comprises pyrolytic graphite, bismuth, composite graphite having graphite particles mixed in a non-conductive composite matrix, and diamagnetic materials mixed in a composite matrix (HOPG in p.2 stands for Highly Oriented Pyrolytic Graphite).
Regarding claim 21, Cheng teaches A gravimeter (Fig. 1A, p. 3-4 teaches resultant force based on gravity), comprising:
a first diamagnetic material and a second diamagnetic material, the first diamagnetic material disposed longitudinally separate from the second diamagnetic material (upper and lower HOPG sheets, p. 2, see Fig. 1a);
a float magnet disposed longitudinally between the first diamagnetic material and the second diamagnetic material (floating magnet, Fig. 1a); and
a lift magnet disposed longitudinally from the float magnet with at least one of the diamagnetic materials disposed between the lift magnet and the float magnet and configured to levitate the float magnet between the first and second diamagnetic materials (lifting magnet, Fig. 1a).
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.
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 105402299 A (herein Wu).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng does not teach, “a dampener configured to stabilize movement of the float magnet while levitated.” However, Wu teaches an eddy current damping structure for gravimeter (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng does not teach, “wherein the dampener is configured to inductively dampen motion of the float magnet through eddy current braking.” However, Wu teaches it is known in the art to damp magnetic devices via eddy current braking (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng does not teach, “wherein the dampener comprises conductive nonmagnetic material.” However, Wu teaches eddy current plate 2 can be made of aluminum or titanium which are both nonmagnetic (p. 6 of translation).
For claims 9-11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the dampening of Wu into the levitation device of Cheng. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of minimize disturbance for high detection accuracy (p. 1).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 6799462 (herein Berstis).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng does not teach, “an interferometer configured to measure a longitudinal position of the float magnet.” However, Berstis teaches it is known in the art that a laser interferometer may be employed to accurately measure the position of the levitated mass (Col. 2, Lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng does not teach, “wherein the determining the difference between the first and second longitudinal positions comprises measuring the positions with an interferometer.” However, Berstis teaches it is known in the art that a laser interferometer may be employed to accurately measure the position of the levitated mass (Col. 2, Lines 26-28), which may be used to determine gaps found in Cheng (Fig. 1a).
For claims 14 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the interferometer of Berstis into the levitation structure of Cheng. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of determining gaps L1 and L2 in Fig. 1a of Cheng.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 prior art does not teach, “wherein at least one of the diamagnetic materials is formed with a longitudinal opening configured to allow a laser light beam to pass through the opening and shine on a surface of the float magnet.” Berstis teaches a laser interferometer but there is no opening in diamagnetic materials intended for the laser to pass through.
Claims 15-19 and 22 are allowed. Regarding independent claims 15 and 22 and dependents thereof, the prior art does not teach, “determining the difference between the first and second longitudinal positions to determine an amount of change between the gravitational fields.” Cheng teaches equivalent structure presented in claims 15 and 22 and rejected in claims 1 and 21 above. However, there is not a second gravitational field different from the first gravitational field to determine change amount. Berstis teaches variations in gravitational field, and attributions to such (Col. 2, Lines 23-27), but it differs from the present invention that screen 65 is not diamagnetic and thus functions differently than Cheng and the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights