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
Applicant’s submission filed 11/19/2025 includes changes to the claims, remarks and arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered. Claims 1, 3, 6-23 & 25 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the specification objection:
Applicant has amended the title to reflect the invention. The amended title “TAMPER PREVENTION FOR AN ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER” is accepted and reflected in the attached Bib datasheet.
With regard to the 112(b) rejection:
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to resolve the structure required to cause a braking of the electrical circuit is a frangible component. The 112(b) rejection of the claims regarding the breaking of the circuit is withdrawn.
Claim 1 was not amended to provide the structure in support of a releasable compressive force
Applicant argues the structure is provided in the rolled-up of Claims 2 & 4-5. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the limitations of the rolled-up claims do not provide the structure regarding a releasable compressive force. The 112(b) rejection of the claims regarding the required structure is maintained.
With regard to the 112(d):
Claim 22 is amended to eliminate the dependency from any of the preceding claims to a required dependency of a single claim dependency (e.g. Claim 1). The 112(d) rejection of the claim is withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretations:
Applicant canceled Claim 4 rendering the interpretation of Claim 4 moot. The frangible component as cited in amended claims provides sufficient structure and does not invoke a 112(f) interpretation.
Applicant’s argument regarding Claim 10 and dependent claims recite an urging mechanism configured to selectively apply the compressive force to at least part of the ultrasonic transducer does not invoke a means plus function interpretation because the term “means” is not invoked. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as MPEP 2181 establishes a term used as a substitute for “means” is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
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”. An urging mechanism is a nonce term lacking any structural description. The claim interpretation of an urging mechanism as a compressing fastener to apply an attaching compressive force is maintained.
With regard to the 103 rejection:
Applicant argues the references do not provide one frangible component which is fragmented by a compressive force and that this fragmentation in combination with the release of the compressive force is the cause of the electrical circuit breaking. The teaching of Busby provides one electronic component comprising an electronic device; and wherein the glass substrate fragments with an attempted intrusion event into the tamper-proof electronic package, the fragmenting of the glass substrate also fragmenting the at least one electronic component secured thereto, destroying the at least one electronic component. Applicant’s argument regarding a functional step of “the release of the compressive force is the cause of the electrical circuit breaking” is persuasive but the limitation lacks structure as to what structure creates the compressible force and releases the compressible force. The tamper proof housing of Busby (US 20180350757) and related reference of Adams (US 20110090658) both teach housing that if tampered with by applying a compressive force to include removal will break the housing rendering the electronics housed inoperable. Examiner notes Applicant’s invention is distinct in that a compressing fastener installed into a housing of the ultrasonic sensor so as to selectively apply a circuit operable compressive force and is removable out of the housing so as to release the compressive force. The 103 rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-12, 14-23 & 25 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.
Claims 1, 3 10-11, 15, 18-20 & 22-23 recite the limitation “that release of the compressive force causes or results in the circuit being broken so as to render the ultrasonic sensor inoperable or irreversibly inoperable” which is structurally unclear as to what element is required to create and release a compressive force. Examiner looks to the specification and it seems the compressive force is structurally provided by a compressing fastener (e.g. urging mechanism) installed into a housing of the ultrasonic sensor so as to selectively apply an operating compressive force and is removable out of the housing so as to release the compressive force. The compressing fastener is essential to operate the circuit which generates a required operating compression to cause the frangible component to break away, creating the operating electrical connection through to the piezoelectric element [0033] & [0053]. All dependent claims are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 13 is not rejected under 112(b) as the structure for the compressive force is cited as an urging mechanism interpreted as a compressive fastener.
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) or pre-AIA , 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.
The cited limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following table provides the generic place holder, functional language and the review and citation of the specification that shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim(s)
Generic place holder language or “means”
Functional Language
Interpretation from written description
10
an urging mechanism configured to
selectively apply the compressive force to at least part of the ultrasonic transducer
[0027: a screw, a lever, one or more toothed cogs, a cam member, an electromagnet, a piston, a syringe, a quick release, a bolt, a friction fit member] interpreted to mean a fastener capable of applying a compressive force.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 etseq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-12, 14-23 & 25 are rejected under to and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 13 is objected to due to its dependence on rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 1 with dependent claim 13. The closest prior art is Kim (US 2018/0358311) in view of Busby (US 2017/0116830). Kim in combination with Busby teach an ultrasonic sensor with a piezoelectric element and an active electrode and a counter electrode adapted for electrical connection to the piezoelectric element for a circuit operable electrical circuit where the ultrasonic sensor is mounted or configured to be mountable to an entity to be sensed such that removal of the ultrasonic sensor from the entity causes a breaking of the electrical circuit so as to render the ultrasonic sensor inoperable or irreversibly inoperable from at least one frangible component configured to fragment responsive to a compressive force on at least part of the ultrasonic sensor.
Kim, Busby nor the prior art provide the clarified limitation of:
a compressing fastener installed into a housing of the ultrasonic sensor so as to selectively apply a circuit operable compressive force and is removable out of the housing so as to release the compressive force; wherein the ultrasonic transducer is configured such that a combination of the frangible component being fragmented and the release of the compressive force causes or results in the circuit being broken so as to render the ultrasonic sensor inoperable or irreversibly inoperable.
Regarding Claims 3, 6-23 & 25 are objected to based on their dependence on the indicated allowable material of Claim 1.
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 Monica S Young whose telephone number is (303)297-4785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-05:30 MST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-273-2375. 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.
/MONICA S YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855