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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wave measurement module” in claims 1 and 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-10 and 18-20 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 7, 9 and 18-20, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) due to dependency on claim 7.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) because the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 14-18, 20, 29-30 and 33-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boubekri (2016. MHz ultrasound induced roughness of fluid interfaces. Langmuir, 32(40), pp.10177-10183.) in view of Shrivastava (US20210167868A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boubekri teaches a spectroscopic ellipsometry apparatus for characterizing an interaction between a stimulus and a liquid, the apparatus comprising: a stimulator , configured to provide a stimulus (ultrasound) to a liquid (liquid-gas and liquid-liquid interfaces) disposed on a volume of liquid to generate a wave in the liquid, the liquid and the volume of liquid having an interface therebetween (page 1: a fluid interface is exposed to an US wave perpendicular to it), light beam optics for illuminating an area of the liquid with a light beam (page 1: the amplitudes of surface fluctuations have been measured by light reflectivity and ellipsometry), the light beam having a first polarization (page 3, figure 1: p-polarized laser beam of intensity I0 hits the surface), and a light collector coupled to a detector for receiving the light beam after reflection by the liquid (page 3, figure 1: the reflected intensity Ip is detected), the light beam having a second polarisation after reflection by the liquid (ellipsometry inherently measures the change in polarization state of light upon reflection);a wave measurement module coupled to the light collector and configured to provide surface wave data (page 1: “the amplitudes of surface fluctuations have been measured …. We found a dramatic enhancement of surface roughness, roughly linear with intensity, with vertical displacements of the interface as high as 50-100 nm” the system that processes the detected light to determine surface roughness is the wave measurement module that provides surface wave data), but fails to disclose to characterize a Lucassen wave in the liquid thin film based on the second polarisation.
However, Shrivastava (US20210167868A1), which relates to characterization of liquid thin film, thus from the same field of endeavor as Boubekri, teaches to characterize a Lucassen wave (solitary wave, non-linear, compressible) in the liquid thin film ([0020], [0023], [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating to characterize a Lucassen wave in the liquid thin film based on the second polarization for adiabatic, energy efficient signal propagation.
Regarding claim 6, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the surface wave data is based on: an s-polarisation component of the second polarisation and on a p-polarisation component of the second polarisation (Boubekri :ellipsometry inherently measures both s- and p- polarization components).
Regarding claim 7, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the surface wave data comprises a first time series of samples, for example wherein the samples are collected from the liquid thin film (Boubekri: page 2: The acoustic wave is emitted for times of several seconds (about 1 minute))
Regarding claim 14, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the liquid thin film comprises at least one of a protein and a lipid (Shrivastava: [0016]).
Regarding claim 15, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the light beam comprises wavelengths selected according to a component of the thin film (Boubekri uses wavelength of 533 nm in page 3, and in ellipsometry, wavelength is chosen relative to a sample’s optical dispersion)
Regarding claim 16, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light beam is provided to the surface at an angle of incidence selected according to a component of the thin film (Boubekri: pages 3, 5:The angle of incidence of the laser beam could be finely varied and the reflected)
Regarding claim 17, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the stimulator comprises a test substance provider configured to contact the surface of the liquid with a test substance (chemo-mechanical (e.g. a mechanical wave excited by a chemical signal)) thereby to provide the stimulus (Shrivastava: [0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the stimulator is configured to provide an electrical stimulus to the surface of the liquid, for example to the thin film (Shrivastava: [0032]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the stimulator generates a plurality of wave modes, such as surface wave modes, for example in the liquid thin film (Boubekri: page 8: ultrasound generates surface modes).
Regarding claim 29, Boubekri teaches a reservoir computing unit comprising: a reservoir (container) for holding a liquid (page 3), a spectroscopic ellipsometry apparatus configured to measure the response of a liquid held in the reservoir to a stimulus based on the input signal (page 5: The profile of fluid interfaces under ultrasound has been investigated by light reflectivity and ellipsometry.), but fails to disclose an input for receiving an input signal, and an output for providing an output signal based on the measured response.
However, Shrivastava teaches an input for receiving an input signal ([0005]), and an output for providing an output signal based on the measured response ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating an input for receiving an input signal, and an output for providing an output signal based on the measured response for improved measurement.
Regarding claim 30, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the spectroscopic ellipsometry apparatus comprises: a stimulator, configured to provide a stimulus (ultrasound) to a liquid to generate a wave at the surface of the liquid (page 1) light beam optics for illuminating an area of the liquid thin film with a light beam (Boubekri: page 1: the amplitudes of surface fluctuations have been measured by light reflectivity and ellipsometry), the light beam having a first polarization (Boubekri: page 3, figure 1: p-polarized laser beam of intensity I0 hits the surface), and a light collector coupled to a detector for receiving the light beam after reflection by the surface (Boubekri: page 3, figure 1: the reflected intensity Ip is detected), the light beam having a second polarisation after reflection by the wave (ellipsometry inherently measures the change in polarization state of light upon reflection); a wave measurement module coupled to the light collector and configured to provide surface wave data based on the second polarization (Boubekri: page 1: “the amplitudes of surface fluctuations have been measured …. We found a dramatic enhancement of surface roughness, roughly linear with intensity, with vertical displacements of the interface as high as 50-100 nm” the system that processes the detected light to determine surface roughness is the wave measurement module that provides surface wave data); an output for providing an output signal based on the surface wave data (Shrivastava: [0006]).
Regarding claim 33, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 29, teaches wherein the surface of the liquid carries a liquid thin film, the liquid thin film and the liquid having an interface therebetween (Shrivastava [0016]).
Regarding claim 34, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 30, but fails to disclose wherein the stimulator is configured to provide the stimulus based on an output signal provided from another reservoir computing unit.
However, Shrivastava teaches wherein the stimulator is configured to provide the stimulus based on an output signal provided from another reservoir computing unit ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating wherein the stimulator is configured to provide the stimulus based on an output signal provided from another reservoir computing unit providing a cascaded signal processing system.
Regarding claim 35, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus is configured such that effects of Lucassen waves are determinable from the surface wave data (Shrivastava: solitary wave, non-linear, compressible [0020], [0023], [0025]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boubekri (2016. MHz ultrasound induced roughness of fluid interfaces. Langmuir, 32(40), pp.10177-10183.) in view of Shrivastava (US20210167868A1), further in view Garvey (US20140324367).
Regarding claim 8, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the wave measurement module is configured to provide, based on the first time series, a second time series wherein the second time series has a lower sample rate than the first time series.
Garvey, which relates to data analysis, thus an analogous art, teaches wherein a measurement module (data decimator module 118) is configured to provide, based on the first time series (oversampled data), a second time series (decimated waveform) wherein the second time series has a lower sample rate than the first time series ([0254]-[0259, [0274], claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating wherein the wave measurement module is configured to provide, based on the first time series, a second time series wherein the second time series has a lower sample rate than the first time series in order to reduce data rate to a more manageable data rate.
Regarding claim 9, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava and Garvey, teaches the apparatus of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the second time series has a sample rate of at least 2kHz, for example at least 10 kHz.
However, Garvey teaches that sample rates can be adjusted based on characteristics of the measured signal ([0337]), and selecting a sample rate of at least 2 kHz or at least 10kHz is a routine design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating wherein the second time series has a sample rate of at least 2kHz, for example at least 10 kHz as desired in order to satisfy Nyquist criterion.
Regarding claim 10, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava and Garvey, teaches the apparatus of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the second sample rate is selected based on the size of the area.
However, Boubekri teaches the laser spot is about 0.5 mm size (page 10), and Garvey teaches sampling rate and sampling interval can be adjusted based on characteristics of the measured signal ([0337]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating wherein the second sample rate is selected based on the size of the area as desired in order to satisfy Nyquist criterion.
Claims 12-13 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boubekri (2016. MHz ultrasound induced roughness of fluid interfaces. Langmuir, 32(40), pp.10177-10183.) in view of Shrivastava (US20210167868A1), further in view of Klieber (2012. Optical generation and detection of gigahertz-frequency longitudinal and shear acoustic waves in liquids: Theory and experiment. Journal of Applied Physics, 112(1)).
Regarding claim 12, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the light beam optics focus the beam of light.
However, Kleiber, which relates to acoustic wave propagating through liquid layers, thus from the same field of endeavor as Boubekri teaches the light beam optics focus the beam of light (page 6: The pump pulses focused to a spot size of about 100 micrometers on the front of the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating wherein the light beam optics focus the beam of light for higher spatial resolution.
Regarding claim 13, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava and Klieber, teaches the apparatus of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein a focal point of the beam is positioned so that the beam is diverging when it meets the light collector.
However, wherein a focal point of a beam is positioned so that the beam is diverging when it meets the light collector is an optical design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri by incorporating wherein a focal point of the beam is positioned so that the beam is diverging when it meets the light collector in order to lower the peak intensity to avoid saturation of the detector.
Regarding claim 19, Boubekri, when modified by Shrivastava, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein operation of the light collector is coupled to operation of the stimulator such that surface wave data can be determined at selected times after the stimulus, for example wherein the said times are selected based on a location of the stimulus on the surface.
However, Kleiber teaches operation of the light collector (probe) is coupled to operation of the stimulator (pump) such that surface wave data can be determined at selected times after the stimulus (fig. 3, page 5, right col.: a front-back optical pump-probe experimental setup, page 6, left col.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boubekri as modified by Shrivastava by incorporating operation of the light collector is coupled to operation of the stimulator such that surface wave data can be determined at selected times after the stimulus, for example wherein the said times are selected based on a location of the stimulus on the surface to achieve predictable improvements in measurement capability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights