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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed October 13th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 13-14 have been amended; claims 12 and 25 have been cancelled; claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-19, 21-22, and 26 remain pending in this application.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-19, 21-22, and 25-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 cover a device which transmits and receives acoustic waves and its method of manufacture, respectively. The specification as originally filed fails to describe the device and its method of manufacture in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the specification simply recites the intended results and anticipated resultant structure based on simulation results, however fails to provide sufficient detail indicating the device has actually been manufactured. For instance, Spec. at [0047] states that the piezoelectric structures may be developed, fabricated, validated, and tested to provide improved performance to conventional structures for underwater applications prior to physical prototyping, however there is no indication as to whether any such device has actually been developed or any concrete Gaussian distribution function or algorithm utilized in the design. Further, Spec. at [0048] states that finite element analysis and modelling tools can determine structures that achieve targeted results and a manufacturing method capable of developing such a device, however there is no indication as to whether any such device has actually been developed as well as any concrete design specifications of transducer designed based on the results of the finite element analysis. Additionally,[0049]-[0051] states that manufacturing processes can be chosen from a variety of methods and validated in order to achieve targeted results, however there is no indication as to whether any particular device has actually be developed or what the algorithm or function is used to design such a transducer based on what targeted results are desired. Applicant’s Spec. at [0054]-[0059] states that test transducers can be fabricated in order to validate a manufacturing process as a proof of concept, however the test transducers appear to be simulation results rather than physically manufactured devices as no particular manufacturing process is disclosed, so it is unclear as to whether any such test transducer was actually manufactured or whether simulations are conducted and validated as merely a proof of concept. Finally, Applicant’s Spec. at [0061]-[0065] states that an exemplary transducer was designed utilizing Computer Aided Design (CAD) based on a Gaussian distribution function, and that the thickness and length of the pins, as well as the diameter of the transducer can be developed to fit a number of scenarios, however it is unclear what the algorithm or equation for the Gaussian distribution function is or how the alteration of such a distribution function alters the design specification of the components. Whether one of ordinary skill in the art could devise a way to accomplish the function is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention ( See Blackboard, 57 4 F3d at 1385, 91 LJSPQ2d at 1493). Thus, the written description is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 15 lack written description support because there is no specific disclosure on any particular Gaussian distribution function used.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16-19, 21-22, and 25-26 lack written description support because there is no specific disclosure on any device physically manufactured or the particular algorithm or equation utilized to design and manufacture it, nor is there any disclosure as to the algorithms or equations utilized to design any of the exemplary examples discussed.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-19, 21-22, and 25-26 are further rejected due to their respective dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-19, 21-22, and 25-26 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
An enabling specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The undue experimental test is a weighing of multiple factors, including but not limited to the following: (1) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (2) the existence of working examples; (3) the nature of the invention; (4) the state of the prior art; (5) the level of one of ordinary skill; (6) the level of predictability in the art; and (7) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the disclosure fails to enable the claimed inventions.
Factors 1 & 2: the amount of direction provided by the inventor and the existence of working examples.
The specification provides possible materials, shapes, spacing, and dimensions in a high level of generality and does not offer any meaningful direction on how to make and use the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant’s disclosure has not provided sufficient information for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed piezoelectric transducer. See rejections under § 112(a); however no such function is recited. No working example was provided in the disclosure.
Although the knowledge of one skilled in the art is indeed relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the patent. Auto. Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Id. at 1283 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk NS, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The fact that the disclosure provides neither guidance, nor any working examples, at the point of novelty, commands a finding that undue experimentation is required.
Factors 3 & 4: the nature of the invention and the state of the prior art.
The invention generally relates to a piezoelectric transducer and its method of manufacture (Fig. 2A, Pg. 2, [0005]-[0006]).
At the time of the invention, piezoelectric transducers that perform the function of transmitting acoustic waves is well known. See references cited in the final rejection dated 11/14/2024. On the other hand, a transducer comprising “a plurality of piezoelectric components disposed interstitially in the polymer infill, the plurality of piezoelectric components arranged in a plurality of rings, wherein adjacent rings of piezoelectric components are separated by non-piezoelectric material, wherein the plurality of rings are spaced apart from each other radially such that a distance between adjacent rings decreases radially inwardly”, as covered by the claim, is in early development. The field faces many challenges and lacks a complete solution, including diffuse directionality found in phased array systems as well as the large component size required by such systems (See Applicant’s Spec. at [0004]).
To the extent that the claim covers a piezoelectric transducer that is in early development and facing many challenges, a more detailed disclosure is required of how to make and use the components for the claimed invention is required. Accordingly, factors 3 &4 weigh strongly towards a finding of non-enabling disclosure.
Factors 5 & 6: The level of one of ordinary skill in the art and the predictability in the art.
The level of ordinary skill in the art is high in the field of piezoelectric transducers based on the fact that a college degree is required. Thus, less disclosure is required. On the other hand, as discussed in the analysis presented in factor 4, although piezoelectric transducers configured to transmit and receive acoustic waves is well-known, the field of piezoelectric transducers comprising “a plurality of piezoelectric components disposed interstitially in the polymer infill, the plurality of piezoelectric components arranged in a plurality of rings, wherein adjacent rings of piezoelectric components are separated by non-piezoelectric material, wherein the plurality of rings are spaced apart from each other radially such that a distance between adjacent rings decreases radially inwardly” which achieves high directionality and small component size, faces many challenges and lacks a complete solution. In other words, the level of predictability is low. Accordingly, factors 5 and 6 weight towards a finding that undue experimentation is required.
Factor 7: The quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The spec provides neither guidance nor working example on how to make the claimed invention. See factors 1 & 2 analysis. On the other hand, there are many challenges in the field and there is a lack of a complete solution. See factors 3 & 4 analysis. The disclosure is insufficient in view of the high level of generality provide in the specification. See rejections under § 112(a) written description requirement. The technology is unpredictable. See factors 5 & 6 analysis. A skilled person in the art facing all the challenges and predictability, would require a large amount of experimentation in order to practice the claimed invention lacking any meaningful guidance. Auto. Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (a disclosure for impact sensors provided only a high-level system overview, without precise details of sensor construction or integration, was held to be nonenabling). Therefore, undue experimentation is required.
In sum, the following factors favor less disclosure: the level of ordinary skill in the art is high; piezoelectric transducers are well-known. The following factors favor more disclosure: piezoelectric transducers that high directionality and small component size are in early development and face many challenges, the field lacks a complete solution and predictability; there is no meaningful guidance on how to make or use the entire scope of the claimed invention, no disclosure of any working example. The quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention is large based on the content of the disclosure. On balance, the Wands factors show lack of enablement.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 13, 15-19, 21-22, and 26 are further rejected for lack of enablement due to their respective dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 13-19, 21-22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. ("Design and properties of Gaussian-type 1–3 piezoelectric composites." Composite Structures 140 (2016): 213-216.) in view of Sigmund et al. ("On the design of 1–3 piezocomposites using topology optimization." Journal of materials research 13.4 (1998): 1038-1048., “Sigmund”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a device for transmitting and receiving acoustic waves comprising: a polymer infill; the plurality of piezoelectric components arranged in a plurality of rings wherein adjacent rings of piezoelectric components are separated by non-piezoelectric material; and wherein the rings are spaced apart from each other radially such that a distance between adjacent rings decreases radially inwardly. (Fig. 1 ((c) #3) and Fig. 2 ((c)#3) illustrate the adjacent rings of piezoelectric components being separated by non-piezoelectric material and each distance separating adjacent rings radially decreasing inwardly);
Xu may not explicitly disclose a plurality of uniformly sized piezoelectric components disposed interstitially in the polymer infill;
Sigmund teaches a plurality of uniformly sized piezoelectric components disposed interstitially in the polymer infill (Fig. 1 illustrates a sketch of a piezocomposite construction comprising a plurality of uniformly sized piezoelectric rods disposed within a matrix material)(([pg. 3, A. Matrix Properties], the matrix material is a porous polymer).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of piezoceramics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Xu, to include the uniformly sized piezoceramic rods of Sigmund with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing sensitivity that is magnitudes greater than that of a pure piezoceramic device [pg. 1].
Regarding claim 2, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein spacing of the plurality of rings relative to each other is based on one or more Gaussian distribution functions. ([pg. 1], the piezoelectric composites and size of the piezoelectric rods create a Gaussian distribution)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the size and ring arrangement of the piezoelectric rods creating a Gaussian distribution implicitly means the spacing of the rings relative to one another also indicates a Gaussian distribution)
Regarding claim 3, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein a first subset of piezoelectric components of the plurality of piezoelectric components are evenly spaced apart from one another in a first ring of the plurality of rings, and a second subset of the piezoelectric components of the plurality of piezoelectric components are evenly spaced apart from one another in a second ring of the plurality of rings. (Fig. 1 ((c) #3) and Fig. 2 ((c)#3) illustrate the adjacent rings of piezoelectric components being separated by non-piezoelectric material and each distance separating adjacent rings radially decreasing inwardly and the piezoelectric components of each ring are even spaced from one another)
Regarding claim 4, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 3. Xu further discloses wherein the second ring is adjacent to and radially inward of the first ring, (Fig. 1 ((c) #3) and Fig. 2 ((c)#3) illustrate the adjacent rings of piezoelectric components being separated by non-piezoelectric material and each distance separating adjacent rings radially decreasing inwardly)
Regarding claim 5, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein a ratio of an area of piezoelectric components of the second ring to an area of a second annular area is larger than a ratio of an area of piezoelectric components of the first ring to an area of a first annular area encompassing the first ring. (Implicit, Fig. 2c illustrates the second ring having larger piezoelectric components while having a smaller second annular area, compared to the first ring which has smaller components and a larger annular area; therefore the ratio inequality is satisfied)
Regarding claim 6, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 5. Xu further discloses wherein the areas of the piezoelectric components of the first and second rings and the first and second annular areas are surface areas in a circular plane of the device. (Fig. 2(c) illustrates the areas of the piezoelectric components of the first and second annular surface areas are surface areas in a circular plane of the device )
Regarding claim 8, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the plurality of piezoelectric components are arranged in a radial pattern comprising a center point and the radial pattern is configured such that fabrication of the device can be accomplished in sections. (Fig. 1 ((c) #3) and Fig. 2 ((c)#3) illustrate the adjacent rings of piezoelectric components being separated by non-piezoelectric material and comprising a center point with a radial pattern which the examiner interprets to be capable of being fabricated in sections)
Regarding claim 9, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 1. Xu further teaches wherein the device is configured to generate a radiation pattern comprising a main lobe width of 2 to 20 degrees. (Fig. 2 (c) illustrates piezoelectric rods uniformly distributed in a circular manner around the device. Based on Applicant’s specification at [0074], a uniform circular distribution of pins (rods) would yield a main lobe of 8.4 degrees which meets the claim limitation)
Regarding claim 13, Xu, as modified in view of Sigmund teaches the device of claim 1. Sigmund further teaches the plurality of piezoelectric components are cylindrical pins (Fig. 1 illustrates the piezoelectric rods being comprised of cylindrical rods)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the rods of Sigmund are equivalent to pins).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 8 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 9 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 13 and is therefore indicated as being allowable over prior art for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 13th, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description requirement rejections of claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-19, 21-22, and 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims satisfy the written description requirements for the following reasons:
Fig. 2A-2G demonstrate that the claimed invention was ready for patenting and describes distinguishing identifying characteristics of the invention.
Applicant’s Specification at [0061]-[0069] describe detailed overviews of the rings and piezoelectric components, including particular Gaussian functions that can be used to determine the spacing, geometries of the device and the associated piezoelectric pins
Applicant’s Specification at [0050] describes an exemplary manufacturing process for fabricating the device using additive manufacturing.
The actual reduction to practice is not a prerequisite for satisfying the written description requirement
With respect to (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Fig. 2A-2G demonstrates that the claimed invention was ready for patenting and describes distinguishing characteristics of the invention. For example, Applicant’s Specification at [0061] states that Fig. 2A is a CAD model of an exemplary piezoelectric structure layer of a transducer with a radial Gaussian distribution, however there is no radial Gaussian distribution function disclosed. Applicant’s Specification at [0061] further describes that the rings, which are correlated to the Gaussian distribution function are “for illustrative purposes only” and therefore do not adequately describe any specific Gaussian distribution function utilized, as there is none described in Applicant’s Specification. Applicant’s Specification at [0063] then describes that Fig. 2C comprises an transducer based on an exemplary radial Gaussian distribution, which comprises annular areas and a first inner and outer ring consisting of sets of pins, with Fig. 2D showing a perspective view of the piezoelectric structure. Applicant’s specification at [0064] states that the length of the pins is limited based on resolution of the manufacturing process and mechanical stability during post-processing. As there is no specific disclosure on what manufacturing method is used or any mechanical stability determination disclosed, it is unclear how the thickness and shape of the pins correlate to the manufacturing or mechanical stability during post-processing. Additionally Applicant’s Specification at [0065] states that the diameter and thickness of the transducer is directly configured based on the intended underwater application. As no intended underwater application is disclosed, it is impossible to draw any meaningful correlation between the transducers diameter and thickness with its intended underwater application. MPEP 2163(II)(3)(a) states "if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function".). "Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function." (See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49)). As Fig. 2A-2G merely show exemplary illustrations of the claimed invention, without describing the critical aspects of the specific Gaussian distribution functions used, explicit manufacturing processes used, mechanical stability during post processing, pin thickness and shape, and transducer thickness and diameter, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, as the missing critical aspects are directly tied to an indication that the invention was ready for patenting, regardless of whether an actual reduction to practice took place.
With respect to (2), The examiner respectfully disagrees that Applicant’s specification at [0061]-[0069] describes the rings and piezoelectric components, including particular Gaussian functions that can be used to determine the spacing, geometries of the device and the associated piezoelectric pins. For example, [0061]-[0069] fail to explicitly disclose any specific Gaussian distribution function, but rather merely describe that the spacing of the rings may decrease radially inwardly, which is inadequate to show Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing and that the claimed invention was ready for patenting. For example, Applicant’s Specification at [0066] states that the Gaussian distribution functions are relied upon to determine the placement of the pins, as well as the decrease in the diameter of each adjacent rings and the proportional area of the pins within the ring patterns. Finally, Applicant’s Specification at [0069] states that Gaussian distribution functions are dependent upon the aperture size limited by the manufacturing process used, as well as the pin placement being dependent upon the selected Gaussian distribution, which is directly tied to the desired main lobe, intended underwater application, and type of directivity, however makes no recitation regarding to how these parameters are determined other than finite element analysis or trial and error. Without the required specifics of the exact Gaussian distribution function, the specifics regarding the placement of the pins, spacing of each adjacent ring, and the proportional placement of the pins within the ring patterns cannot be determined, thus it cannot be determined that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
With respect to (3) the examiner respectfully disagrees that Applicant’s Specification at [0050] provides adequate disclosure to demonstrate that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing and that the invention was ready for patenting. Applicant’s Specification at [0050], merely states that the determined piezoelectric structures may be fabricated with additive manufacturing using a printer, as well as potential post-processing steps that may be taken, however Applicant’s Specification at [0048]-[0049] states that manufacturing processes are selected based on desired target properties to be achieved, however the manufacturing process described in [0050] fails to describe any the correlation between disclosed structure and function to demonstrate the claimed invention was ready for patenting at the time of filing.
With respect to (4) the examiner agrees that the actual reduction to practice is not required to satisfy the written description requirement, however the written description remains inadequate to demonstrate that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s Specification at [0048]-[0052] merely describes that many different manufacturing processes may be used to achieve targeted properties, multiple validation techniques may be used prior to physical prototyping, and that multiple material properties may be validated prior to physical construction, however there is insufficient correlation between any manufacturing processes, validation, or material properties to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Further Applicant’s Specification at [0061]-[0069] merely states that pins and rings may be selected based on Gaussian distribution functions which may be determined based on desired underwater application at directivity characteristics of the transduce, however no explicit Gaussian distribution functions are disclosed, and that such functions may be determined through finite element analysis or trial and error. Thus, cited portions of Applicant’s Specification do not demonstrate with sufficient detail that the claimed invention was ready for patenting. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description requirement rejections of claims 1-6,8-9,12-19,21-22 and 25-26 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed October 13th, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement rejections of claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-19, 21-22, and 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims satisfy the enablement requirement for the following reasons:
Applicant’s Specification at [0060]-[0066] properly enables claims 1 and 14 without requiring undue experimentation
With respect to (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Applicant’s Specification at [0060]-[0066] properly enables the invention of claims 1 and 14. MPEP 2164.01 states “the test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation." (See United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Applicant’s Specification at [0060] merely demonstrates that a number of Gaussian distribution functions may be used to determine pin placement, ring spacing, potential pin and polymer materials in order to achieve increased side lobe mitigation compared with uniform radiating apertures. Applicant’s specification at [0061] merely describes that various piezoelectric structures may be simulated in CAD to simulate results when pin number, ring arrangement, and annular area sizing based on Gaussian distribution functions, however no specific Gaussian distribution function is disclosed, as well as how the potential Gaussian distribution function dictates specific arrangements and numbers of pins and rings. Applicant’s specification at [0063]-[0064] simply states that the ring patterns may include one or two Gaussian distribution functions that dictate the radial spacing of the pins and rings of the transducer and that the lengths and shapes of the pins can be selected based on resolution of the selected manufacturing process and mechanical stability during post processing, however no disclosure is made regarding how any particular manufacturing process or mechanical stability during post processing determines the lengths and shapes of pins. Applicant’s Specification at [0065] merely states that the length and thickness of the transducer is determined based on the underwater application, however there is no specific disclosure as to what the actual underwater application corresponding to a given transducer thickness is, rather there is only recitation of various frequency ranges achievable with a given transducer thickness. Additionally, Applicant’s specification at [0066] merely states that the pin placement is determined by the selected Gaussian distribution function, and that the pins may be fabricated in sections based on the selected fabrication method, however no recitation of any actual Gaussian distribution function is disclosed. Finally, Applicant’s specification [0049]-[0051] states that manufacturing processes can be chosen from a variety of methods and validated in order to achieve targeted results, however there is no indication as to whether any particular device has actually be developed along with the specific Gaussian distribution function used to design such a transducer and inform the pin placement and ring arrangement to achieve the desired targeted results. The cited portions of Applicant’s Specification demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation as they would be required to determine the relationships between any one of an infinite number of Gaussian distribution functions, piezoelectric and polymer materials, pin placements, ring spacing, manufacturing methods, underwater applications, and directivity characteristics without any meaningful guidance from Applicant’s specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed October 9th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xu in view of Sigmund. Similarly, the rejections of claims 2-6, 8-9, 13-19, 21-22, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been maintained due to their respective dependence upon claims 1 and 14.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Dorr et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3327286) which discloses an underwater transducer with concentric circumferentially spaced piezoelectric elements
Kushida et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4692653) which discloses an acoustic transducer with circumferentially spaced components based on Gaussian distributions
Clark et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6570819) which discloses a piezoelectric acoustic projector with concentric circumferentially disposed sections separated from one another by a wire
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645