DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Amendment
The previous 112 rejection has been withdrawn based on the clarifying amendment of 12/31/25.
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.
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) 1-9, 11, and 3-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0124746, “Suzuki”) in view of Shibamoto et al. (US 2020/0071579, “Shibamoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches an ultrasonic transducer ([0022]) comprising a laminate in which a plurality of acoustic members are laminated ([0022], [0037]) and an adhesive layer joining two of the acoustic members ([0107]). Suzuki fails to specifically teach that the adhesive includes a silane coupling agent, however in the same field of endeavor of adhesives for use in electronic laminates ([0002], [0011]), Shibamoto teaches an adhesive composition for use in laminates (e.g., [0001]) that comprises a silane coupling agent reading on that of presently claimed Chemical formula 1 (see [0022] – [0025], [0062] – [0064], wherein the silane group may have methoxy groups and may include alkyl groups substituted with a reactive group see [0054], [0055]). It would have been obvious to have substituted the adhesive composition of Shibamoto for that of Suzuki for its good crack resistance, adhesiveness, and heat resistance and for its noted ability to be used in electronic applications (see [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Suzuki additionally teaches that the adhesive layer may comprise an organic acid additive including an organic acid have from 2 to 6 carbon atoms (Shibamoto, [0161] – [0164], e.g., mercaptopropionic acid).
Regarding claim 3, modified Suzuki additionally teaches that the functional group of the silane coupling agent may include one from the claimed list (e.g., mercapto group, Shibamoto, [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches that the acoustic member may comprise an acoustic matching member (e.g., [0023]) and that the adhesive layer may join the acoustic member to another acoustic member ([0107]).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki additionally teaches that the acoustic member comprises a piezoelectric material that transmits and receives ultrasonic wave (e.g., [0014]) and the adhesive layer joins the piezoelectric material to the acoustic matching layer (e.g., [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki additionally teaches that the acoustic matching layer may comprise elastomeric particles ([0144], [0145]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Suzuki additionally teaches that that the acoustic matching layer may be formed by laminated a plurality of acoustic layers, including four or more layers ([0042], [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches that a layer farthest from the piezoelectric layer may comprise elastomeric particles (see, e.g., Figs. 6 and 7, layer 2, [0136], comprising dry gel powder particles, see Fig. 7a, 7b, [0144]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Suzuki additionally teaches that the adhesive may comprise an epoxy compound (Suzuki, [0014]; Shibamoto, [0134] – [0136]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Suzuki (Shibamoto) additionally teaches that the adhesive may usefully have a thickness on the range of less than 1 micrometer in order to easily make a thin film that provides good heat resistance, insulating properties, crack resistance and adhesiveness (Shibamoto, [0171], [0172]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Suzuki additionally teaches an ultrasonic apparatus or probe comprising the ultrasonic transducer ([0204], [0205], flowmeter may be considered a “probe”).
Regarding claims 16-18, Suzuki teaches a method of manufacturing an ultrasonic transducer ([0022], [0042]) comprising laminating a plurality of acoustic members ([0022], [0037]) and wherein an adhesive layer is disposed to join two of the acoustic members ([0107]). Suzuki teaches to apply an adhesive to the surface of the acoustic member (e.g., [0014], [0107]) and teaches to subject the surface of the acoustic member to oxygen plasma treatment ([0132]). Suzuki fails to specifically teach that the adhesive includes a silane coupling agent, however in the same field of endeavor of adhesives for use in electronic laminates ([0002], [0011]), Shibamoto teaches an adhesive composition for use in laminates (e.g., [0001]) that comprises a silane coupling agent reading on that of presently claimed Chemical formula 1 (see [0022] – [0025], [0062] – [0064], wherein the silane group may have methoxy groups and may include alkyl groups substituted with a reactive group see [0054], [0055]). It would have been obvious to have substituted the adhesive composition of Shibamoto for that of Suzuki for its good crack resistance, adhesiveness, and heat resistance and for its noted ability to be used in electronic applications (see [0011]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Shibamoto as applied to claims 1 and 4, above, and further in view of Tiefensee et al. (WO 2009/112025, “Tiefensee,” a machine translation of which is provided and used as the citation copy). Becker et al. (CN 109640832, hereafter “Becker” a machine translation of which is provided) is further cited as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki additionally teaches the amount of particles to resin may be 150% or more ([0150], thermal binding polymer of less than 40 mass% and thus the remainder the powder dry gel particles, [0148] – [0150]). Suzuki fails however to teach the specific gravity of the particles is on the range of from 4.5 to 6.0. However, in the same field of endeavor of acoustic members for use in ultrasonic transducers (pp. 1-2), Tiefensee teaches that it is known to provide particles in such a layer wherein the particles have a density of greater than 4 g/cm^3 (p. 5, thus having a specific gravity with respect to a typical resin of about greater than 4, wherein a typical resin might have a density of around 1 g/cm^3; For example, see Beckers p. 6, para. 3, wherein typical resins for use as a base material whose density is to be adjusted with particles is on the range of a little less than that of water, for example for polybutadiene is around 0.95 g/cm^3) so as to adjust the density of the acoustic matching layer itself, and in particular to be able to make an acoustic matching layer with a suitable density while maintaining thinness in the layer (see generally abstract and pp. 1-2, p. 5). It therefore would have been obvious to have substituted the particles of Tiefensee for those of Suzuki in order to effectively modify the density of the acoustic matching layer and in particular to be able to make the acoustic matching layer with a suitable density while maintaining thinness in the layer (see generally abstract and pp. 1-2, p. 5). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Shibamoto as applied to claims 1 and 4, above, and further in view of Bromfield (US 2007/0063618, “Bromfield”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Suzuki fails to specifically teach the glass temperature of the adhesive. However, in the same field of endeavor of ultrasonic transducers ([0001] – [0005]), Bromfield teaches an adhesive for use in such a transducer that has a glass transition temperature of greater than 60C and that such adhesives are well-suited to transducer applications (Bromfield [0051]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adjusted the glass transition temperature of the adhesive to around 84C, or greater than 60C, as such a Tg is known to be well-suited to ultrasonic transducer applications (Bromfield, [0051]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, while Suzuki teaches an ultrasonic apparatus or probe comprising the ultrasonic transducer ([0204], [0205], flowmeter may be considered a “probe”), Bromfield additionally teaches such a construction (e.g., [0053]), and the employment of the ultrasonic transducer arrangement of Suzuki in such a probe as that described by Bromfield would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan in order to use the apparatus in medical applications (Bromfield, [0053], [0030]).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Shibamoto as applied to claims 1 and 16, above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2018/0230338, “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Suzuki fails to specifically teach the silane coupling agent has an amino or mercapto functional group. However, in the field of silane coupling agents such functional groups are well known and their inclusion would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to effectively improve the adhesion between two materials that would otherwise not couple well. For example, in the same field of endeavor of adhesives for use in laminate constructions (e.g., [0009], [0050] – [0053]), Zhou teaches that coupling agent may be functionalized with an amino or mercapto group and that either will improve the hydrophilic qualities of the coupling agent ([0051]). It therefore would have been obvious to have functionalized the silane coupling agent of modified Suzuki (Shibamoto) with an amino or mercapto group in order to improve the hydrophilic qualities of the coupling agent ([0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/31/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Shibamoto fails to teach the inclusion of a linking group corresponding to the X group of formula 1 of claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant notes, paragraph 0151 of Shibamoto describes the linking group corresponding to the X group of formula 1 of claim 1 as having from 1 to 20 carbons. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Shibamoto effectively teaches this feature. Further, the Examiner notes that “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Please see MPEP §2123.
The applicant asserts that unexpected results overcome the obviousness rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the applicant appears to have shown that the results are preferred, the applicant has failed to show that the results are necessarily unexpected and unexpected to a degree sufficient to overcome obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Please see MPEP §716.02. The burden is on the applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, commensurate in scope with the claims, and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP §716.02(b) and §716.02(d). The applicant is reminded that an affidavit or declaration must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §716.02(e).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as described above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 Information 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782