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 because Figure(s) 1, 3-4, and 21 is/are not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3), which requires numbers, letters, and reference characters to measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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), 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) 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) 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. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (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).
Claims 1, 17, and 20
Claims 1, 17, and 20 interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claims 1, 17, and 20
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, the limitation “membrane resonator assembly” uses the generic placeholder “assembly” 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. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to an SiN membrane resonator, wherein the membrane resonator assembly contains a trampoline structure resonator, wherein the SiN membrane resonator has a layer of sputtered Au-Pd deposited thereon, wherein the Au-Pd is deposited on the SiN membrane in a circular pattern, wherein the SiN membrane comprises a metasurface having an array of cross absorber pattern on the membrane, wherein the metasurface is formed by depositing titanium onto the SiN membrane resonator via electron beam evaporation through a shadow mask to form the metasurface, wherein the membrane resonator assembly is configured to be mounted inside the vacuum chamber by a flange coupled to the vacuum chamber, wherein the membrane resonator assembly further comprises: a membrane chip containing a membrane resonator thereon; a bottom plate coupled having a cavity for receiving a membrane chip; a top plate for containing the membrane chip within the bottom plate; wherein the rear surface of the membrane resonator is directed towards the top plate and the front surface of the membrane is directed towards the bottom plate and the optical fiber (claims 2-7 and 9 as originally filed), and equivalents thereof. Regarding the interpretations of claims using generic placeholders, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-15, 17, and 20
Claims 1-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 2-10 and 12-15
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-15, the claims are rejected due to their dependence.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “The system of claim 11” which is unclear because a claim cannot depend upon itself. Examiner has considered claim 11 to depend upon claim 10.
The limitation “a bottom plate coupled having a cavity for receiving a membrane chip” is not clear as to what the bottom plate is coupled to.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
There is the insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “membrane resonator cavity” in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the sensor system” in the claim.
There is the insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “membrane resonator cavity” in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “membrane resonator cavity” in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15, 17, and 20
Claims 1-15, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest the claimed invention, particularly the claimed membrane resonator assembly and the claimed component and surface configurations, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The cited prior art discloses some elements of the claim. Luhmann (WO 2023/183958 A1; a copy is attached to the Information Disclosure Statement filed 13 November 2025) discloses a high detectivity infrared radiation sensor system (p. 7, first full paragraph; Figs. 1-2) comprising: a vacuum chamber having a view port (window) on a first surface; a membrane resonator 3 assembly mounted inside the vacuum chamber on an second surface opposite the first surface (the mounting is necessarily required in order for the sensor system to function); a source of light configured to emit infrared radiation through the viewport and into the vacuum chamber as part of an interferometer; wherein the membrane resonator assembly receives the infrared radiation and interferometry is used to determine the radiation intensity, wherein the membrane resonator assembly is an SiN membrane resonator (pp. 6-9).
While various means for infrared or radiation detection using membranes were generally known in the art, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration. Accordingly, claim 1 would be allowable.
Claims 2-15
Regarding claims 2-15, the claims would be allowable due to their dependence.
Claims 17 and 20
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the claims would be allowable due to their dependence on claim 16, which is allowed as described below.
Claims 16 and 18-19
Claims 16 and 18-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, while the cited prior art teaches some features of the claimed invention as described regarding claim 1 above, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration components and surfaces.
Claims 18-19
Regarding claims 18-19, the claims are allowed due to their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
