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 .
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 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 2-13 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.
Regarding claims 2, 4-7 and 12, it is not clear from the claims what the meaning of the right parenthesis of “…signal,)…” or “…signal)…” It is not clear if a letter is supposed to be in front the parenthesis or a possible another symbol should be in that place such as a semicolon. Since claim 3 depends from claim 2, claim 8 depends from claim 6 and claim 13 depends from claim 12, they also are rejected for the above reason.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, it is not clear from the claim what the meaning of the right parenthesis of “…fluorescence)…” It is not clear if a letter is supposed to be in front the parenthesis or a possible another symbol should be in that place such as a semicolon. Since claims 10-11 depend from claim 9 and claim 13 depends from claim 12, they also are rejected for the above reason.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuta et al (Gradiometer Using Separated Diamond Quantum Magnetometers) in view of IIja et al (Diamond Magnetometer Enhanced by Ferrite Flux Concentrators) [both supplied by applicants].
PNG
media_image1.png
318
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
239
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
281
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yute et al disclose [see Figs 1a & 1b above] a magnetic field gradiometer for determining a magnetic field gradient, the magnetic field gradiometer comprising: at least one excitation light source [not shown but see the word “laser”] for emitting excitation light (lines above the word “laser”), two spatially spaced-apart measurement regions [shown but not numbered or labeled] for magnetic field measurement, the two measurement regions comprising color centers in a diamond, which emit fluorescence upon excitation by the excitation light (lines above the word “laser”) [see page 3 1st paragraph for details], a first detector (left detector) for detecting the fluorescence from a first measurement region of the two measurement regions, a second detector (right detector) for detecting the fluorescence from a second measurement region of the two measurement regions, a first microwave emitter (MW source 1) for applying a first microwave field to the first measurement region, a second microwave emitter (MW source 2) for applying a second microwave field to the second measurement region, an evaluation device [not shown] configured to determine the magnetic field gradient based on the detected fluorescence from the first measurement region and the detected fluorescence from the second measurement region [see page 3, 1st paragraph for details]. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose a signal generator unit as claimed. IIja et al disclose [see Figs 3 & 9] a first microwave emitter and a second microwave emitter (MW generators) [see Fig. 9] and a signal generator unit [see Fig. 9] configured to generate a first microwave signal for the first microwave emitter, the first microwave signal comprising at least two frequency components with a phase offset of π with respect to one another, and a second microwave signal for the second microwave emitter, the second microwave signal comprising at least two frequency components with a phase offset of π with respect to one another [see page 4, right column for details]. Further, IIja et al teaches that the addition of the signal generator unit is advantageous because it helps increase of the magnetic field amplitude within the diamond which demonstrate a sensitivity to magnetic fields in different frequency range and introduces a new degree of freedom for the design of diamond sensors by using structured magnetic materials to manipulate magnetic fields. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Yute et al by adding signal generator unit as taught by IIja et al in order to introduces a new degree of freedom for the design of diamond sensors by using structured magnetic materials to manipulate magnetic fields.
Regarding claim 2, Yute et al disclose a magnetic field gradiometer for determining a magnetic field gradient. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose a signal generator unit as claimed. IIja et al disclose [see Figs 3 & 9] a first microwave emitter and a second microwave emitter (MW generators) [see Fig. 9] and a signal generator unit [see Fig. 9] wherein the signal generator unit comprises a first frequency mixer (combiner in 9a or mixer in 9b) for forming the two frequency components of the first microwave signal) with the phase offset of π with respect to one another, the first frequency mixer (combiner in 9a or mixer in 9b) being configured to mix a frequency of a first frequency-modulated signal) and a frequency of a first oscillator signal, and wherein the signal generator unit comprises a second frequency mixer (combiner in 9a or mixer in 9b) for forming the two frequency components of the second microwave signal) with the phase offset of π with respect to one another, the second signal generator unit being configured to mix a frequency of a second frequency-modulated signal) and a frequency of a second oscillator signal [see page 4, right column for details]. Further, IIja et al teaches that the addition of the signal generator unit is advantageous because it helps increase of the magnetic field amplitude within the diamond which demonstrate a sensitivity to magnetic fields in different frequency range and introduces a new degree of freedom for the design of diamond sensors by using structured magnetic materials to manipulate magnetic fields. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Yute et al by adding signal generator unit as taught by IIja et al in order to introduces a new degree of freedom for the design of diamond sensors by using structured magnetic materials to manipulate magnetic fields.
Regarding claim 3, Yute et al disclose wherein the first frequency-modulated signal and the second frequency-modulated signal have different carrier frequencies [see page 3 for details], and/or wherein the first oscillator signal and the second oscillator signal have different oscillation frequencies.
Regarding claim 9, Yute et al disclose wherein the evaluation device [see page 3, 1st paragraph for details]. However, the prior art does not disclose demodulators as claimed. IIja et al disclose an evaluation device comprises a first demodulator (lock-in amplifier) for forming a first demodulated double resonance signal from the detected fluorescence) of the first measurement region, and a second demodulator (lock-in amplifier) for forming a second demodulated double resonance signal from the detected fluorescence) of the second measurement region [see Appendix E on pages 9-10]. Further, IIja et al teaches that the addition of the demodulators is advantageous because it helps increase of the magnetic field amplitude within the diamond which demonstrate a sensitivity to magnetic fields in different frequency range and introduces a new degree of freedom for the design of diamond sensors by using structured magnetic materials to manipulate magnetic fields. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Yute et al by adding demodulators as taught by IIja et al in order to introduces a new degree of freedom for the design of diamond sensors by using structured magnetic materials to manipulate magnetic fields.
Regarding claim 10, IIja et al disclose wherein the first demodulator and the second demodulator are configured as lock-in amplifiers.
Regarding claim 11, IIja et al disclose wherein the evaluation device is configured to determine a first magnetic field-dependent resonance shift of a first magnetic field in the first measurement region based on the first demodulated double resonance signal, and to determine a second magnetic field-dependent resonance shift of a second magnetic field in the second measurement region based on the second demodulated double resonance signal [see Appendix E on pages 9-10].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: regarding claim 4, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to the signal generator unit comprises a first power adder for adding a first frequency-modulated microwave signal) with two frequency components with the phase offset of π with respect to one another and a further first frequency-modulated microwave signal) with two frequency components with the phase offset of π with respect to one another, and wherein, in order to form the second microwave signal,) the signal generator unit comprises a second power adder for adding a second frequency-modulated microwave signal) with two frequency components with the phase offset of π with respect to one another and a further second frequency-modulated microwave signal) with two frequency components with the phase offset of π with respect to one another. Since claims 5-8 depend from claim 4, they also have allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to the evaluation device comprises a first power splitter for dividing a power of the detected fluorescence) from the first measurement region among a first pair of demodulators, and a second power splitter for dividing a power of the detected fluorescence) from the second measurement region among a second pair of demodulators. Since claim 13 depends from claim 12, it also has allowable subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights