DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure (specification) is objected to because of an administrative error. Going forward with examination, the following specification paragraph is interpreted to be (Note that in applicant’s response, where a change is requested in the specification, an entire paragraph of the specification containing the change will be needed):
Paragraph beginning on page 4, line 17:
--The mirrors of the cavity can be any diameter from 0.5 mm-10 cm. The mirror faces can be curved or flat. Any suitable curvature can be used; in some examples, a very small radius of curvature (e.g., 2 millimeters) results in a suitably high optomechanical sensitivity. The distance between the mirrors can be adjusted by adding spacers, as described above. The spacer lengths can be in the range of 100 microns - 1 mm. In some examples, a total cavity length of several millimeters (e.g., 2 millimeters) and a mirror diameter of several millimeters (e.g., 3 millimeters) achieves a desired cavity finesse and stability.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of an apparent editorial errors. Going forward with examination, the claims are interpreted to be:
--4. The method of claim 1, wherein sensing the displacement comprises sensing a resonance frequency of the charged optomechanical resonator and calculating the displacement based at least in part on the sensed resonance frequency.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception relating to an abstract idea without significant more.
The claims recite a method for sensing velocity, the method comprising steps which all together appear to be a process practiced mentally but not integrated into any of the physical statutory patentable categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. One would not be able to physically practice claims 1-9 (See MPEP 2106).
In order to overcome the rejections, the claims could be changed to:
--1. A method for sensing velocity, the method comprising:
using an optical measurement system to sense
using a processing logic in communication with the optical measurement system to determine
--2. The method of claim 1, wherein the optical measurement system comprises a laser system to sense by interrogating the optical cavity
--3. The method of claim 2, wherein the laser system detects to include detecting a beat note between light transmitted by the cavity and light obtained from a reference light source.--
--4. The method of claim 2, wherein the laser system senses of the charged optomechanical resonator to include sensing a resonance frequency of the charged optomechanical resonator, and the laser system calculates
--5. The method of claim 1, further comprising using a magnetometer to measure
--6. The method of claim 1, further comprising using the processing logic to modulate
--7. The method of claim 6, wherein the charged optomechanical resonator comprises a first electrode of a capacitor, and wherein the processing logic modulates by modulating a voltage of the capacitor.--
--8. The method of claim 2, wherein the charged optomechanical resonator is a first charged optomechanical resonator, the optical cavity is a first optical cavity, and the velocity is a first velocity component along a first direction, the method further comprising:
using a second laser system to sense using the processing logic to determine
using a third laser system to sense using the processing logic to determine
--9. The method of claim 1, further comprising using a navigational system to navigate the navigational system to navigate the mobile platform by:
estimating a location of the mobile platform based at least on the determined velocity, a direction of movement of the mobile platform, a previous known location of the mobile platform at a previous point in time, and an amount of time elapsed since the previous point in time.--
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2026/0160555 A1; hereinafter “Brown”).
Brown teaches a system for sensing velocity, the system comprising (See fig. 1B, reproduced below):
a Lorentz force sensor 102 (Par. 0026), wherein the Lorentz force sensor (102) is configured to sense a Lorentz force (FL) experienced by a charge (q);
a magnetometer 104 (Par. 0033) configured to sense a magnetic field (B) at a present location of the Lorentz force sensor 102 (the magnetometer 104 and the Lorentz force sensor 102 are located in a same body 101); and
processing logic 114 (Par. 0031) configured to determine, based on the sensed Lorentz force (FL) and the sensed magnetic field (B), a velocity (v) of the charge (q) through the magnetic field B (Par. 0019).
Par. 0019: “The Lorentz force velocimeter (102) utilizes the magnetic Lorentz equation:
FL = q*v × B, where FL is a Lorenz force, q is a charge, and v × B is the Lorentz electric field…The charge (q) is controlled and known by the Lorentz force velocimeter (102)…Using the Lorentz electric field, velocity can be derived using the magnetic Lorentz equation.”
Obviously, once the Lorentz force (FL), the charge (q) and the magnetic field (B) are known, the processing logic 114 (Par. 0031) is able to determine, based on the sensed Lorentz force (FL) and the sensed magnetic field (B), the velocity (v) of the charge (q) through the magnetic field (B).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brown doesn’t expressly teach: the Lorentz force sensor (102) comprising a charged object (having the charge q), wherein the Lorentz force sensor (102) is configured to sense the Lorentz force (FL) experienced by the charged object.
However, as discussed above, Brown teaches that “the charge (q) is controlled and known by the Lorentz force velocimeter (102).”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have the Lorentz force sensor (102) comprise a charged object to be controlled and charged to the known charge q (by the Lorentz force sensor 102), wherein the Lorentz force sensor (102) would be configured to sense the Lorentz force (FL) experienced by the charged object (as claimed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowed if the above objections and 101 rejections were overcome. The following would be an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter:
“…using an optical measurement system to sense a displacement of a charged optomechanical resonator disposed in an optical cavity as the optical cavity moves through a magnetic field; and
using a processing logic in communication with the optical measurement system to determine a velocity associated with movement of the optical cavity through the magnetic field, based on one or more factors including at least the sensed displacement of the charged optomechanical resonator.”
(Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1.)
With respect to independent claim 10, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter:
“…a first optical cavity (200/602) comprising a first optomechanical resonator (208), the first optomechanical resonator having an electrical charge;
an optical measurement system (604/606) configured to sense an optical output of the first optical cavity (200/602); and
processing logic (610) in communication with the optical measurement system (604/606), wherein the processing logic is configured to determine, based on the sensed optical output of the first optical cavity (200/602), a displacement of the first optomechanical resonator (208) by a magnetic field through which the first optical cavity (200/602) is traveling.”
(Claims 11-15 are dependent on claim 10.)
Claims 17-20 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 would be a statement for indication of an allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 17, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter:
“…wherein the Lorentz force sensor comprises a pair of mirrors (202, 204) defining an optical cavity (200), the optical cavity (200) having a cavity frequency, and wherein the charged object (208/108) comprises a charged optomechanical resonator (208) disposed between the pair of mirrors (202, 204).”
(Claims 18-20 are dependent on claim 17.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record below and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure/invention.
US 7,696,749 B2 to Sunier et al. discloses a system for providing a magnetic field sensor. The system comprises (See fig. 3, reproduced below):
a Lorentz force sensor (20), wherein the Lorentz force sensor (20) is configured to sense a Lorentz force (FL) experienced by a charged resonator (2) by sensing a resonance frequency of the charged resonator (2); wherein a magnitude of the Lorentz force FL (a resonance frequency of the charged resonator 2) is dependent on a movement of the charged resonator (2) and a magnitude of the magnetic field (B) in which the sensor (20) with the charged resonator (2) is traveling in, said movement being a position, and/or speed, and/or acceleration of the sensor (20) with the charged resonator (2);
means (23) configured to measure a resonance frequency of the resonator 2 (thereby a magnitude of Lorentz force FL);
wherein the system determines a magnitude of the magnetic field (B) based on the measured resonance frequency of the resonator 2 (the magnitude of the Lorentz force FL) and the movement of sensor (20) with the charged resonator (2) through the magnetic field (B).
The resonator (2) is a charged object provided within the sensor (20). Once the magnitude of the Lorentz force FL (resonance frequency of the charged resonator 2) and the movement (e.g., velocity) of the charged resonator (2) are known, the magnitude of the magnetic field (B) can be derived.
Conversely, it can be seen that if a magnitude of the Lorentz force FL (resonance frequency of the charged resonator 2) and a magnitude of the magnetic field (B) are known, a velocity of the sensor (20) with the charged resonator (2) can be derived.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen, Sunier et al. appears to teach, suggest or render obvious all that is claimed in at least claim 1, except for an optical measurement system to sense a displacement of the charged resonator (2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights