Response After Non Final
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/17/2025.
Claims 1-33 and 35-40 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-33 and 35-40 are rejected.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim 34 is canceled.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 have been fully considered
and are respectfully found persuasive in part and unpersuasive in part.
The applicant argues the following:
[1] 112 rejection has been addressed and should be withdrawn.
[2] Prior art of record fails to disclose the newly claimed function.
[3] Improper combination.
Regarding [1], the examiner respectfully agrees and has withdrawn the 112 rejection raised in the non final. However, the newly admitted claim limitations have raised a new 112 issue.
Regarding [2], the examiner respectfully disagrees because new art has been applied to address the newly admitted claim limitations.
Regarding [3], the examiner respectfully disagrees because Morelli does not state such modification is absolutely excluded. The allegation is considered, but there is no evidence in the prior art of record that Morelli would have to change its principle of operation.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112
(pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification fails to provide an enabling description for a “or on the substrate” as recited in claim 1. The specification discloses cavities in the substrate. There is no disclosure of cavities on the substrate. The examiner assumes that this newly admitted cavity location is distinct from the original content in the specification. Therefore, the examiner concludes that the newly admitted claim limitations regarding the location of the cavity in relation to the substrate are new.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-33 and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Morelli et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0312782; hereinafter “Morelli”) in view of Dausch (U.S. Publication No. 20120319535; hereinafter “Dausch”) and further in view of Joyce (U.S. Publication No. 20160339475; hereinafter “Joyce”).
Regarding claim 1, Morelli teaches a micromachined ultrasonic transducer (MUT) array comprising: a substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) and a plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]); the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) affixed (Figs. 2/10) to a surface (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, surface of 25; [0021]) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]), each MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) comprising a movable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) and a cavity (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 19; [0021]) formed in (Figs. 2/10; [0021]) or on the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) beneath the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]); the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]); the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) comprising a trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) extending around (Fig. 2) a perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of one or more MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]). Morelli does not teach wherein each trench is extending around at least 50% of a perimeter of the moveable diaphragm and is configured to reduce the cross-talk of each of the one or more transducers from adjacent transducers.
Joyce, however, does teach wherein each trench (Fig. 4A, 140) is extending around (Fig. 4A) at least 50% (Fig. 4A) of a perimeter (Fig. 4A, perimeter of 120) of the moveable diaphragm (Fig. 4A, 120) and is configured to reduce the cross-talk (Fig. 4A; [0019]) of each of the one or more transducers (Fig. 4A, transducers comprising 120; [0035]) from adjacent transducers (Fig. 4A, adjacent transducers comprising 120; [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Morelli to include the trench extension and function of Joyce because it would provide control of the phases of the sound waves thereby improving beam or wave front output steering (Joyce [0002]; [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein each MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) in the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) is a pMUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein each MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) in the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) is a cMUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) runs from (Figs. 2/10) the surface (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, surface of 25; [0021]) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) to at least 10% (Figs. 2/10), at least 50% (Figs. 2/10), or at least 90% (Figs. 2/10) a thickness (Figs. 2/10, through thickness of 25) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 4, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) runs (Figs. 2/10) an entirety of the thickness (Figs. 2/10, through thickness of 25) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) runs from (Figs. 2/10) an opposite surface (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, opposite surface of 25; [0021]) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) to at least 10% (Figs. 2/10), at least 50% (Figs. 2/10), or at least 90% (Figs. 2/10) a thickness (Figs. 2/10, through thickness of 25) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) runs from (Figs. 2/10) below (Figs. 2/10) the surface (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, surface of 25; [0021]) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) to at least 10% (Figs. 2/10), at least 50% (Figs. 2/10), or at least 90% (Figs. 2/10) a thickness (Figs. 2/10, through thickness of 25) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) has a constant width (Figs. 2/10; Examiner’s Note: Vias width is constant along a plane.; [0007] – “the small size of the acoustic transducer elements, of the order of microns,”). Morelli does not teach a width between 1 µm and 40 µm.
That being said, it is not inventive to discover an optimum range of values for the trench width, mainly, a range between 1 µm and 40 µm, through routine experimentation. (“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (‘The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.’); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” [MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A)].).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trench width of Morelli to include the trench width of between 1 µm and 40 µm because it would provide a more complete description built upon what is already known or discoverable through routine experimentation thereby conforming, expanding, and improving on Morelli’s disclosure (Figs. 2/10; [0007] – “the small size of the acoustic transducer elements, of the order of microns,”).
Regarding claim 9, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]). Morelli does not teach a variable width between 1 µm and 40 µm.
That being said, it is not inventive to discover an optimum range of values for the variable trench width, mainly, a range between 1 µm and 40 µm, through routine experimentation. (“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (‘The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.’); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” [MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A)].).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the variable trench width of Morelli to include the trench width of between 1 µm and 40 µm because it would provide a more complete description built upon what is already known or discoverable through routine experimentation thereby conforming, expanding, and improving on Morelli’s disclosure (Figs. 2/10; [0007] – “the small size of the acoustic transducer elements, of the order of microns,”).
Regarding claim 10, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) has a constant distance (Figs. 2/10; Examiner’s Note: Distance between perimeter and vias is constant along a plane.) from the perimeter of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]). Morelli does not teach a distance between 1 µm and 40 µm.
That being said, it is not inventive to discover an optimum range of values for the distance, mainly, a range between 1 µm and 40 µm, through routine experimentation. (“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (‘The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.’); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” [MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A)].).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance of Morelli to include the distance of between 1 µm and 40 µm because it would provide a more complete description built upon what is already known or discoverable through routine experimentation thereby conforming, expanding, and improving on Morelli’s disclosure (Figs. 2/10; [0007] – “the small size of the acoustic transducer elements, of the order of microns,”).
Regarding claim 11, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) has a distance (Figs. 2/10; Examiner’s Note: Distance between perimeter and vias varies from one plane to another plane.) from the perimeter of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]). Morelli does not teach a variable distance between 1 µm and 40 µm.
That being said, it is not inventive to discover an optimum range of values for the variable distance, mainly, a range between 1 µm and 40 µm, through routine experimentation. (“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (‘The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.’); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” [MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A)].).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the variable distance of Morelli to include the trench width of between 1 µm and 40 µm because it would provide a more complete description built upon what is already known or discoverable through routine experimentation thereby conforming, expanding, and improving on Morelli’s disclosure (Figs. 2/10; [0007] – “the small size of the acoustic transducer elements, of the order of microns,”).
Regarding claim 12, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) is around (Figs. 2/10) at least 50% (Figs. 2/10), 60% (Figs. 2/10), 70% (Figs. 2/10), 80% (Figs. 2/10), or 90% (Figs. 2/10) of the perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 12, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) is around (Fig. 2) the entire perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) at least partially around (Fig. 2) a perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of at least 10% (Figs. 2/10), at least 20% (Figs. 2/10), at least 30%, at least 40% (Figs. 2/10), at least 50% (Figs. 2/10), at least 60% (Figs. 2/10), at least 70% (Figs. 2/10), at least 80% (Figs. 2/10), or at least 90% (Figs. 2/10) of the MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 14, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) at least partially around (Fig. 2) a perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of each MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) is at least partially filled (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) with an acoustic attenuation material (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021] – “electrically conductive material”).
Regarding claim 17, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) are arranged (Fig. 10; [0019] – “array”) in a plurality of columns (Fig. 10; [0019] – “array”) and a plurality of rows (Fig. 10; [0019] – “array”).
Regarding claim 18, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 17, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) runs along (Figs. 2/10) a row (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, row of 615; [0046]) of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 17, wherein each row (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, row of 615; [0046]) of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) has a trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) running (Figs. 2/10) therealong (Figs. 2/10).
Regarding claim 20, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 17, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) runs along (Figs. 2/10) a column (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, column of 615; [0046]) of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 17, wherein each column (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, column of 615; [0046]) of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) has a trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) running (Figs. 2/10) therealong (Figs. 2/10).
Regarding claim 22, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 17, wherein each row (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, row of 615; [0046]) of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) has a first trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 along row; [0021]) running (Figs. 2/10) therealong (Figs. 2/10) and each column (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, column of 615; [0046]) of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) has a second trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 along column; [0021]) running (Figs. 2/10) therealong (Figs. 2/10).
Regarding claim 23, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) is at least partially around (Fig. 2) a perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of a single MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 24, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein each MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) is at least partially surrounded (Figs. 2/10) by a trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]).
Regarding claim 25, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, further comprising at least a second trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 along column; [0021]) at least partially around (Figs. 2/10) the perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of one or more MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 26, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 25, wherein the second trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 along column; [0021]) is at least partially around (Figs. 2/10) the perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of a single MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 27, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 25, wherein each MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) is at least partially surrounded (Figs. 2/10) by a first trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 along row; [0021]) and a second trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 along column; [0021]).
Regarding claim 28, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) is disposed between (Fig. 10) an adjacent pair of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, adjacent pair of 615s; [0046]).
Regarding claim 29, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) comprises a plurality of trenches (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) at least partially around (Figs. 2/10) the perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the moveable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of one or more MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 30, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 29, wherein the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) comprises one trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) per MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 31, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 29, wherein the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) comprises one trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) per adjacent pair of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, adjacent pair of 615s; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 32, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 29, wherein the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) comprises fewer than one trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]; Examiner’s Note: “fewer than one trench” is no trench per adjacent pair of MUTs. Morelli does not teach any trenches shared by adjacent pairs of MUTs. In fact, there is no trench between adjacent pairs of MUTs.) per MUT (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 33, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 29, wherein the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) comprises fewer than one trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]; Examiner’s Note: “fewer than one trench” is no trench per adjacent pair of MUTs. Morelli does not teach any trenches shared by adjacent pairs of MUTs. In fact, there is no trench between adjacent pairs of MUTs.) per adjacent pair of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, adjacent pair of 615s; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Regarding claim 35, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) comprises a trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) buried within (Fig. 2) the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]). Morelli does not teach a cross-talk trench.
Dausch, however, does teach a cross-talk trench (Fig. 4, 170B; [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Morelli to include the cross-talk trench of Dausch because it would provide electrical isolation thereby improving device protection and durability (Dausch [0022]; [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 36, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) comprises a diaphragm-side trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 beside 16; [0021]) extending into (Fig. 2) the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]) from a diaphragm side (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, side of 16; [0021]) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]). Morelli does not teach a cavity-side trench extending into the substrate from a cavity side of the substrate.
Dausch, however, does teach a cavity-side trench (Fig. 4, 170B extending into 160 beside cavity 170B; [0026]-[0027]) extending into (Fig. 4) the substrate (Fig. 4, 160; [0026]) from a cavity side (Fig. 4, cavity 170B side; [0026]) of the substrate (Fig. 4, 160; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Morelli to include the cavity-side trench of Dausch because it would provide electrical isolation thereby improving device protection and durability (Dausch [0022]; [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 37, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 36, wherein the diaphragm-side trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26 beside 16; [0021]) extend through (Fig. 2) a thickness (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, thickness of 25; [0021]) of the substrate (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 25; [0021]). Morelli does not teach the diaphragm-side trench and the cavity-side trench extend partially through a thickness of the substrate.
Dausch, however, does teach the diaphragm-side trench Fig. 4, 170B beside pMUT membrane; [0026]-[0027]; [0031]]) and the cavity-side trench (Fig. 4, 170B extending into 160 beside cavity 170B; [0026]-[0027]) extend partially (Fig. 4, 160; [0026]) through a thickness (Fig. 4, thickness of 160; [0026]) of the substrate (Fig. 4, 160; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Morelli to include the diaphragm and cavity -side trenches of Dausch because it would provide electrical isolation thereby improving device protection and durability (Dausch [0022]; [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 38, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 1, wherein the trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) comprises a pattern of trenches (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, pattern of 26; [0021]) that collectively surround (Fig. 2) the perimeter (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, perimeter of 16; [0021]) of the movable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]) of the one or more MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]) of the plurality of MUTs (Fig. 2, 10; Fig. 10, 615; [0046]).
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Morelli in view of Dausch and Joyce and further in view of Gattere et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0156114; hereinafter “Gattere”).
Regarding claim 39, Morelli as modified teaches the e MUT array of claim 38, wherein each trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) in the pattern of trenches (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, pattern of 26; [0021]) comprises being in a plane (Fig. 2, plane parallel to plane of 16) that is parallel (Fig. 2) to a plane (Fig. 2, plane of 16) of the movable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]). Morelli does not teach a rectangular profile.
Gattere, however, does teach a rectangular profile ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Morelli to include the trench pattern profile of Gattere because it would provide reduced stress sensitivity thereby improving device protection and durability (Gattere [0049]).
Regarding claim 40, Morelli as modified teaches the MUT array of claim 38, wherein each trench (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 26; [0021]) in the pattern of trenches (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, pattern of 26; [0021]) comprises being in a plane (Fig. 2, plane parallel to plane of 16) that is parallel (Fig. 2) to a plane (Fig. 2, plane of 16) of the movable diaphragm (Figs. 2/10; Fig. 2, 16; [0021]). Morelli does not teach a square profile.
Gattere, however, does teach a square profile ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Morelli to include the trench pattern profile of Gattere because it would provide reduced stress sensitivity thereby improving device protection and durability (Gattere [0049]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MONICA MATA
whose telephone number is (571) 272-8782. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Dedei Hammond, can be reached on (571) 270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MONICA MATA/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837 4 December 2025
/EMILY P PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837