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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “acoustic absorbing material” in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: proof mass 9, transmission medium 4, transducer 3 in Fig. 4 and 5 are not shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “the application is directed to”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The first recitation of the acronym “MEMS” must be spelled out for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a MEMS accelerometer”. However, the body of the claim does not appear to disclose any particular “MEMS” characteristics or designs exclusive to MEMS accelerometers. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the MEMS structural elements. For examination purposes, the “MEMS accelerometer” will be considered as an accelerometer. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “an acoustic absorbing material”, but the specification and the drawings do not seem to specify a material for absorbing acoustic and its relative arrangement to the other components in the claim. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-5 and 7-16 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 17, the claim discloses the method steps of “emitting light along a light path”, “imparting a force”, and “detecting the frequency of the modulated light” without reciting a device for emitting light, a device for imparting the force, and a device for detecting the frequency. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: a device for emitting light, a device for imparting the force, and a device for detecting the frequency. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-3 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Twerdochlib (Pat. No. US 4,900,919) (hereafter Twerdochlib).
Regarding claim 1, Twerdochlib teaches a MEMS accelerometer comprising:
a light source for emitting light (i.e., laser 12) (see Fig. 1) along a light path (i.e., optical fiber 16) (see Fig. 1);
an optical detector positioned in the light path for detecting a frequency of the light (i.e., phase shift detector 14) (see Fig. 1);
a proof mass configured to move in response to acceleration (i.e., load mass 10) (see Fig. 1); and
a frequency modulator positioned in the light path for modulating the light emitted by the light source to have a modulated frequency (i.e., vibration sensor 24 comprising phase modulator 28) (see fig. 1),
the frequency modulator positioned in relation to the proof mass (i.e., a vibration sensor 24 which is physically coupled to the load mass 10) (see Fig. 1) such that the proof mass imparts force on the frequency modulator when the proof mass moves in response to acceleration (i.e., sensor 24 will produce an electrical signal responsive to the compression and expansion or flexing of the crystal caused by the load mass 10) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39),
the frequency modulator configured to adjust the modulated frequency in response to the force imparted by the proof mass (i.e., electrical signal produced by the crystal 26 is applied to a phase modulator 28 which then produces a phase modulated light beam which is transmitted to the optical phase shift detector 14 over optical fiber 30) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39) such that the modulated frequency is a function of the acceleration (i.e., phase difference between the modulated beam and a non-modulated reference beam is used to determine the acceleration) (see Column 1, lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 2, Twerdochlib teaches that the frequency modulator comprises an optical transmission medium having a crystalline structure that changes in response to the force imparted by the proof of mass (i.e., piezoelectric crystal 26) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Twerdochlib teaches that the crystalline structure of the optical transmission medium modulates the frequency of the light (i.e., electrical signal produced by the crystal 26 is applied to a phase modulator 28 which then produces a phase modulated light beam which is transmitted to the optical phase shift detector 14 over optical fiber 30) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39).
Regarding claim 11, Twerdochlib teaches that the MEMS accelerometer is an open loop system (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Twerdochlib teaches that the MEMS accelerometer is configured to output a signal representative of acceleration based on the frequency of the light detected by the detector (i.e., the crystal 26 produces an electric potential in response to the force exerted by the load 10 on the crystal 26. The potential causes a charge transfer to the electrodes 46 of the modulator 28. The voltage across the optical waveguide 42 develops a strong electric field therein that changes the index of refraction of the material. The change in refractive index causes a change in the light propagation speed which results in a phase shift in the light beam relative to the reference beam. Because the phase of the light beam carries the acceleration signal, the signal is independent of light source intensity) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39).
Regarding claim 13, Twerdochlib teaches that the MEMS accelerometer is a closed loop system having a proportional controller (i.e., a photocell 64 not only allows the application of a constant phase shift DC type offset to bias the optical chip but will allow a calibration light signal to be transferred over the fiber 62 to allow for calibration and testing of the sensor 24. The photocell 64 can also be used to AC modulate the DC bias to produce beats in the piezoelectric crystal signal. Because photocell 64 is driving essentially infinite an impedance little power need be delivered by the fiber 64) (see Column 3, lines 40-52).
Regarding claim 14, Twerdochlib teaches that the frequency modulator comprises a transducer having a frequency drive (i.e., a conventional silicon photocell 64 to apply a bias to one lead of the piezoelectric crystal 26) (see Column 3, lines 40-52).
Regarding claim 15, Twerdochlib teaches that the optical detector outputs a signal representing the detected frequency to a proportional controller configured to output a control signal to the frequency drive (i.e., providing a feedback signal to the sensor through the photocell 62 to continuously bias the phase shift introduced in the light by the crystal 26 to keep the vibration induced phase shift in the most sensitive region) (see Column 3, line 40, to Column 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 16, Twerdochlib teaches that the optical transmission medium is piezoelectric material (i.e., piezoelectric crystal 26) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Twerdochlib teaches a method of measuring an acceleration, comprising:
emitting light along a light path (i.e., the laser 12 produces a coherent beam transmitted over an optical fiber 16) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39);
modulating the light emitted along a light path using a frequency modulator (i.e., electrical signal produced by the crystal 26 is applied to a phase modulator 28. The phase modulator 28 produces a phase modulated light beam which is transmitted to the optical phase shift detector 14 over optical fiber 30) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39);
imparting force on the frequency modulator proportional to acceleration such that a frequency of the modulated light is a function of the force (i.e., the splitter 18 transmits the other split beam (the sensing beam) over optical fiber 22 to a vibration sensor 24 which is physically coupled to the load mass 10. The sensor 24 includes a conventional piezoelectric crystal 26, which will produce an electrical signal responsive to the compression and expansion or flexing of the crystal caused by the load mass 10) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39); and
detecting the frequency of the modulated light (i.e., the phase difference between the modulated beam and a non-modulated reference beam is used to determine the acceleration) (see Column 2, line 15, to Column 3, line 39).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twerdochlib (Pat. No. US 4,900,919) (hereafter Twerdochlib) in view of Rembe et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0041456) (hereafter Rembe).
Regarding claims 4-6, Twerdochlib as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that frequency modulator further comprises a transducer configured to output an acoustic wave to the optical transmission medium (claim 4);
wherein the frequency modulator is a Bragg cell (claim 5);
wherein the frequency modulator comprises an acoustic absorbing material cooperatively coupled to the optical transmission medium (claim 6).
Regarding the transducer, Rembe teaches that frequency modulator further comprises a transducer configured to output an acoustic wave to the optical transmission medium (i.e., a Bragg cell 4, which serves as an acousto-optic frequency shifter) (see paragraph section [0029]) (claim 4);
wherein the frequency modulator is a Bragg cell (i.e., a Bragg cell 4, which serves as an acousto-optic frequency shifter) (see paragraph section [0029]) (claim 5);
wherein the frequency modulator comprises an acoustic absorbing material cooperatively coupled to the optical transmission medium (i.e., a Bragg cell 4, which serves as an acousto-optic frequency shifter) (see paragraph section [0029]) (claim 6). In view of the teaching of Rembe, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the Bragg cell in order to effect a high speed phase modulation and to compensate for the change in the optical path length, when using a light source having a broad spectral width.
Claims 7-9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twerdochlib (Pat. No. US 4,900,919) (hereafter Twerdochlib) in view of Neuhaus (Pat. No. US 5,048,319) (hereafter Neuhaus)
Regarding claims 7-9, Twerdochlib as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a substrate, the proof of mass being connected to the substrate (claim 7);
wherein the proof of mass is pendulously connected to the substrate by a hinge (claim 8);
wherein the proof of mass is connected to the substrate by a flexure (claim 9).
Regarding the proof mass, Neuhaus teaches a substrate, the proof of mass being connected to the substrate (i.e., base 10) (see Fig. 1) (claim 7);
wherein the proof of mass is pendulously connected to the substrate by a hinge (i.e., connection between member 11 and base 10) (see Fig. 1) (claim 8);
wherein the proof of mass is connected to the substrate by a flexure (i.e., elastic member 11) (see Fig. 1) (claim 9). In view of the teaching of Neuhaus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coupled the proof mass to a substrate in order to provide a restoring force for maintaining the proof mass in predetermined position.
Regarding claim 10, Twerdochlib as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a substrate and a linear constraint connecting the proof of mass to the substrate for linear movement in relation to the substrate. However, Neuhaus teaches a substrate and a linear constraint connecting the proof of mass to the substrate for linear movement in relation to the substrate (i.e., If an acceleration force acts on the inertial body 12 in a direction transversal to the surface of the elastic member 11, the elastic member 11 will act as a bending member, i.e. it will be bent such that the inertial body 12 is moved either towards or away from the tip 19) (see Column 3, lines 9-27). In view of the teaching of Neuhaus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coupled the proof mass to a substrate and provided linear constraint in order to provide a restoring force for maintaining the proof mass in predetermined position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights