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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/20/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 8, and 10-18 remain pending, claims 1, 5, 8, and 9-18 have been amended, and claim 6 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Preliminary matter
It is noted in the remarks filed 12/19/2025 applicant indicates that claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-18 as pending. However, it is noted that claim 6 has been canceled from the amended claim set filed 12/19/2025. The remark that canceled claim 6 as being pending has been interpreted as a typographical error.
Drawing Objections
Applicant's amended drawings and accompanying remarks filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and do not remedy all the outstanding drawing objections.
Applicant indicates in the second from final paragraph of page 7
“A. Unlabeled Structures
According to the Examiner, FIGS. 1-3, 4B, 5, 6A-C, 7B, 8, 10, 11, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B,14B, 16, 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B and 18C contain unlabeled structures. This objection is not supported by law or rule. Nothing in the rules, 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 et seq., or the MPEP (§ 608) requires that all structures in a drawing be labelled to have reference numerals.
According to 37 C.F.R. 1.83, ‘[t]he drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).’ Thus, 37 C.F.R. 1.83 expressly authorizes if not encourages conventional features to be illustrated as a7 box or a labelled representation. In addition, 37 C.F.R. 1.83 does not require reference numerals, and only requires that necessary structural details be shown. MPEP § 608.02(e). Reference numerals are only required if they are used in the description. MPEP § 608.02(e)”.
In response, it is noted that 37 C.F.R. 1.83 further directs applicant “(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith” and “(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d)”.
Further, applicant is to make the amendments as required in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), which indicates “(d) Drawings. One or more application drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to an application drawing must be in compliance with § 1.84…”. Please see the entirety of 37 CFR 1.84, in particular, but not limited to, parts (o)-(q), which states “(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing…”.
Applicant indicates in the third paragraph of page 8
“B. Illegibility
According to the Examiner, FIGS. 3, 5, 10, 11 contain text and structures which are
illegible. Applicant previously submitted professionally drawn replacement figures that meet all drawing requirements. Applicant has reviewed the actual files and they are legible. Application respectfully requests that the Examiner identify which text and structures are rendering at the USPTO as illegible, as Applicant simply cannot correct drawings where the PDF file of the drawings are completely legible prior to uploading the drawing file into Patent Center but they somehow render differently in the Examiner's viewer”.
In response, it is noted that this portion of the objection is present from the nonfinal office action mailed 03/20/2025 which is making reference to FIGS. 3, 5, 10, 11 as filed on 05/26/2023.
FIG. 3 as filed 6/20/25 was amended into two separate figures, while the original figure showed text and drawing schematics that was not legible, they do not appear, although it is unclear, to match the text and drawing schematics provided on FIGS. 3a-3b filed 6/20/2025. FIG. 5 as amended 12/19/2025 has been amended to remove labeled of some structure(s) which appear in original FIG. 5. FIGS. 10-11 amended as filed 6/20/2025, do not show all of the text, previously indicated as illegible, in figs filed 5/26/2023. For these reasons, both sets of the copies of these drawings are indicated as being objected to.
Applicant is reminded that the corrected drawings are required in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application (emphasis added). The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance (emphasis added).
In response to applicant’s part “C. Missing Structure”.
Regarding “parasitics”, this has been rendered moot due to applicant canceling claim 6.
With respect to applicant’s argument on the “pulse-gating circuit”, applicant argues in the second paragraph of page 10
“Applicant has illustrated a circuit that performs pulse-gating, i.e., as explained in Paragraph [0044], a circuit that can perform pulse gating is "a transmit circuit 12 is used to generate the RF pulse 14 used to drive the transducer by gating the LO signal. An AND gate 16 is shown in the embodiment depicted in FIG. 1, but a switch can also be used to achieve the same purpose." Applicant has expressly depicted the structure that can, taken as a whole, can be called a pulse-gating circuit”.
In response, it is noted that it is unclear how the transducer is driven by the structures in FIG. 1, by gating the LO (local oscillator) signal. As described in [0046] of the specification, the passive mixer 30 of the receiver comprises transistor switches that gate the input signal at the local oscillator frequency. Therefore, it appears that the frequency of the local oscillator signal is what drives the reception of the ultrasonic echoes, as known in the ultrasonic arts, but not the drive the transducer. It is noted that applicant notes that the “passive mixer 30” as being “such as that described in US20170366138A1”, however, this document has not been incorporated by reference nor has been cited on any of the filed IDS. It is also noted that this document does not appear to be commonly owned nor has common inventors with the present application.
Regarding the “transmit driver”, the office action mailed 09/30/2025 does not recite this structure as being absent from the drawings as a reason for the drawings being objected. However, it is noted that applicant indicates in the second from final paragraph on page 9 that that “the mixer-first style architecture of the invention can be conceptualized as having a first stage where ‘passive mixer 30 is used as the first stage’”.
The term “conceptualized” is defined by Oxford Learner’s Dictionary to mean “to form an idea of something in your mind”. Accordingly, in response, it is noted that 35 USC 112(a) requires applicant to have possession of the invention at the time the application was filed, not a mere concept of an invention.
Regarding “the receive circuits (plural)”, this has been rendered moot due to applicant canceling the plural receive circuits from the claims.
Applicant argues at the bottom pf page 9 through the first paragraph of page 10
“‘routing capacitance’ and ‘parasitics’ these are fundamental underlying characteristics of physical structure that cannot be illustrated. The Examiner's requirement in this regard is like requiring an applicant to illustrate the luminescence of light bulb or the amount of charge in a capacitor. Applicant has illustrated the structures that result in parasitics and routing capacitance”.
In response, it is noted that routing capacitance and the structures which result in thereof are commonly illustrated in the electrical engineering arts. Please see below for one such example:
PNG
media_image1.png
540
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is noted that the arguments presented are unsupported by objective evidence. Applicant is reminded that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding “the local oscillator switching scheme”, applicant argues on page 11
“With respect to the single transmit phase shifter for an array of pixels such a row or column, FIG. 8 shows how the phase shifter should be connected to each pixel and FIG. 13A illustrates how a single phase shifter connected can be used to control an array”.
In response, it is noted applicant has amended “local oscillator switching scheme” to “local oscillator switching circuit” and it is noted that it is unclear, if FIG. 8 is how the phase shifter is connected to each pixel in applicant’s invention or how is should be, as noted by applicant above. It is unclear if applicant is indicating as applicant has previous argued regarding parts of applicant’s invention as merely being conceptualized. It is also noted that FIG. 8 has been objected to in office actions mailed 09/30/2025 and 03/20/205. Applicant has not proposed to amend FIG. 8 nor provide a response to the objection(s).
Applicant also argues on page 11
“D. Paragraph [0053]
The drawings were further objected to because the top transducer electrode and the via to the bottom transducer electrode of Paragraph [0053] are not shown in FIG. 4B.
First, Paragraph [0053] does not promise that this structure is in FIG. 4B. Paragraph
[0053] explains that FIG. 4A shows that "the transducer 102 covers all but one corner 104 of the pixel 100" and that FIG 4B is simply a CAD layout for the circuitry. Paragraph [0053] further explains that FIG. 4A shows that the transducer 102 leaves the corner uncovered to make room for the vias to the top transducer electrode and bottom transducer electrode. Nothing in Paragraph [0053] suggests that either FIG. 4A or 4B includes an illustration of the top transducer electrode and bottom transducer electrode or that the figure needs to do so as a result.
Second, this structure is not recited in the claims, so this objection is improper under 37 CFR 1.83 as unclaimed structure does not need to be illustrated”.
In response, it appears applicant is responding to the response to arguments section of the office action mailed 09/30/2025, which was responding to the following argument applicant provided in the third from final paragraph through the final paragraph of page 7 of the previous response filed 06/20/2025, which argued:
“With respect to the via for the top and bottom transducers, Paragraph [0053] does not identify the vias as being depicted in FIG. 4B. Paragraph [0053] explains that ‘the transducer 102 covers all but one corner 104 of the pixel 100 (shown in FIG. 4A), which is allocated for the via to the top transducer electrode and the via to the bottom transducer electrode.’ Paragraph [0053] thus explains that the corner 104 is ‘allocated’ for the vias by the transducer 102 seen in the figures, it does not state that the vias are, in fact, affirmatively depicted in FIG. 4A or 4B.
With respect to pixel transducer 102, FIG. 4A clearly depicts the pixel transducer, which extends over the entire area except for the corner that is allocated for the vias, as explained previously. The ‘mixer-first style architecture’ is simply the colloquial name given to the inventive concept of placing a mixer before the amplifier and output select switch. The ‘mixer first style architecture’ is the design illustrated in FIG. 1, which clearly shows the mixed being the first structure downstream of the transducer”.
Applicant was responded to with the response stating that
“[I]f the ‘vias’ are not ‘affirmatively’ shown in either FIGS. 4A or 4B, then the drawings should be objected for not showing this subject matter and applicant should further amend the drawings to include said structure. And as applicant has indicated that ‘mixer-first style architecture’ referenced in the [0046] of the specification is a ‘simply the colloquial name given to the inventive concept of placing a mixer before the amplifier and output select switch’, applicant has not amended the specification to include this description of the term. Therefore, the outstanding drawing objections remain objected”.
Please see pages 3-4 of the office action mailed 09/30/2025.
Further in response, FIGS. 4A and 4B have been objected to in office actions mailed 09/30/2025 and 03/20/205. Applicant has not proposed to amend FIGS. 4A and 4B nor provide a response to the objections. It is noted that FIG. 4A is described as being a micrograph in [0053] of the specification, which appears, due to the detail lost in the greyscale photo, to originally have been submitted as a color micrograph. However, applicant has not filed a petition to have a photograph accepted as required to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
In response to “E. Characters 12 and 18” which applicant argues “are clearly pointing to different general areas of the illustrated circuit and use arrow heads to signify general areas rather than lead lines that designate specific structure” in last paragraph of page 12.
In response, it is noted that it is not clear what structures are encompassed in each of the respective “general areas” indicated by arrows 12 and 18, respectfully.
Therefore, the drawings remain objected for all reasons outlined in the rejection apart from the specific terms pointed out in the above response as being withdrawn from the drawing objections.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues in the first paragraph of page 14
“As explained in Paragraph [0048], ‘mixers typically must be followed by a filter to filter out higher order mixing products.’ Paragraph [0048] then explains that to reduce the pixel area, this filter is ‘realized by the frequency response of the baseband amplifier 28 combined with the parasitics from the pixel output selection switches 32 and the routing capacitance from the wiring used to route the pixel output 34 out of the array.’ Applicant has therefore provided nearly verbatim written description of the claim language rejected as lacking a written description. Indeed, even the claims as originally filed explains that the ‘the baseband amplifier, output select switch, and wiring are a filter.’ MPEP 2163, [t]here is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed.’ Moreover, there has been no showing that one of skill in the art would not recognize that the inherent electrical characteristics of the amplifier, the output select switch, and the wiring will effectively filter higher order mixing product when coupled to the passive mixer. This result is a matter of physics. The lack of written description rejection is therefore unfounded as the specification as filed included an express written description for the claim language in both the specification and original claims”.
It is noted that support which is verbatim written description verses “nearly verbatim written description”, as applicant admits to the latter, are not the same.
In response, it is noted that the claim 1
, and the claims dependent upon claim 1, are rejected or reciting new matter.
Applicant argues in the final paragraph of page 14 through the first paragraph of page 15
“This limitation was contained in the specification as filed in original claim 13 and is also expressly explained in Paragrpah [0056]:"A differential amplifier 310 (FIG. 611) can be used to amplify the difference between a sensing pixel output 312 and the reference pixel output 314 (or the difference between the reference pixel output 314 and the sensing pixel output 312 depending on the desired signal polarity, as shown in FIG. 6C), allowing the sensitivity of the sensor to be increased." The specification as filed thus explains that the outputs (which are voltages) can be differentially amplified to increase sensitivity”.
As noted in [0056], a differential amplifier is noted to be in FIG. 611. However, there is no FIG. 611. As previously noted in the office action mailed 09/30/2025, see page 3, applicant has not amended many of the drawings that objections remain, which include, and are not limited to FIGS. 6A, 6B, 6C. It appears, although it is unclear, that FIG. 611 in [0056] is meant to refer to FIG. 6B, which has structure 310. However, [0056] as indicated above also makes reference to FIG. 6C. On FIG. 6C, references are made to a “solid black line” and a “red dotted line”. However, the images appear only in black and white and applicant has not filed a petition to have color drawings accepted.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Further, the sensing pixel output 312 is not explicitly recited as being the output of an imaging pixel.
Nonetheless, in light of applicant’s amendments to claim 13, this rejection has been rendered moot. However, the amendments have introduced clarity issues under 112(b). See the corresponding rejection below.
Applicant argues in the second from final paragraph of page 15 through the first paragraph of page 16
“The Examiner's analysis of this limitation, however, is not directed to this structure and instead discusses how switches functionally choose circuits. None of the matters identified by the Examiner are recited in the claim, nor do they have any bearing on the rejected limitation. Applicant has recited that certain structures will filter higher order mixing products of the mixer as they are connected downstream. Applicant expressly explained in the specification that the recited structure will act as a filter when coupled as recited in the claims. Unless the Examiner has evidence that one of skill in the art would not understand this filtering or that the recited structure will not filter higher order mixing products, the indefiniteness rejection is improper. In an effort to close prosecution, Applicant has amended the grammar of claim 1 to clarify this limitation.
The Examiner has also rejected the claims for using the term ‘pixel’ based on a single definition from a dictionary in a different technical field. The term ‘pixel’ is used through the specification and in the field of the present invention to refer to the structure that creates a single unit of measurement or the resulting output. The fact that a definition in a single dictionary only mentioned the latter usage of the term is not conclusive. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(counseling against dictionaries as source of claim construction). Indeed, there are numerous patents that all use pixel to refer to the ultrasound circuit used to generate the image information. See Indeed, FIG. 1 is expressly described as ‘a simplified schematic representation of the pixel circuitry of a GHz ultrasonic transducer pixel’ and thus makes it abundantly clear that Applicant is describing and claiming a set of components that can be used to form an image of a single pixel that is part of a larger array and that set of components is being called a GHz ultrasonic transducer pixel. That phrase is used uniformly throughout the specification for that meaning. To the extent that Applicant needed to provide an express definition for a term that is clearly understood in the field, Applicant has done so. Nevertheless, a ‘pixel’ is not just the illumination value at a given point - it can also be the structure that provides that data. See US Pat. Nos. 67446769, 64564946, 59961487, and 57227098 (titles using ‘ultrasonic pixel’ to refer to the structure). Even Wikipedia recognizes this fact and agrees with Applicant's usage: ‘In digital imaging, a pixel (abbreviated px), pel,[1] or picture element[2] is the smallest addressable element in a raster image, or the smallest addressable element in a dot matrix display device.’ https://en.wikipediaorg/wiki/Pixel. A pixel can thus be the physical element, as well as the information provided by that element. In order to avoid further debate, Applicant has amended the claims to remove all references to pixel”.
As a preliminary matter, it is noted that applicant has not cited the above documents nor online web references on an IDS. When attempting to look up each of the individual above referenced US patent documented cited by the applicant, no such US patent documents exists. Therefore, it is unclear to what documents applicant has referred to as support for their arguments.
Accordingly, it is noted that the arguments presented are unsupported by objective evidence. Applicant is reminded that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Further, applicant’s arguments and claim amendments do not resolve the outstanding issues in claim 1 and have introduced additional clarity issues which have been outlined in the rejection below that has been updated to reflect the present claim language.
Applicant indicates on page 16 of the response that they have amended claim 6 to overcome the rejection. This has been interpreted as a typographical error. Claim 6 in the amended claim set also filed on 12/19/2025 has canceled claim 6. Therefore, in light of the applicant cancelling claim 6, the previous 112(b) rejection has been rendered moot and has been withdrawn.
Further, in response to the claim amendments filed 12/19/2025, the rejections of claims 8, 12, and 15 have also been rendered been and have been withdrawn. However, these claims are still rejected due to their dependent from a rejected parent claim.
The amendments to claims 1, 13, 14, 16, and 18 to not address all the issues outlined in the previous rejection and have introduced additional clarity issues to the claims. The claim amendments have also introduced new issues in additional claims. Please see the updated new claim rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Applicant presents structures, text, and/or symbols shown in FIGS. 1-3, 4B, 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, 7B, 8, 10, 11, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 14B, 16, 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B, and 18C which are unlabeled and/or do not have associated reference characters and/or are not mentioned in the specification. Further, FIGS. 3, and 5, 10, 11 contain text, structures which are entirely illegible.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pixel select circuit, the power supply conditioning circuitry; the receive circuit positioned as the mixer; the wiring with routing capacitance; one or more pixels connected to the one or more piezoelectric transducers; the one or more piezoelectric transducers attached to the CMOS device; the LO switching scheme connected to the transmit circuit and the receive circuit ; the single transmit phase shifter for an array of the one or more pixels; the transmit phase shifter for a per row or a per column of the one or more pixels in an array of the one or more pixel must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because arrows 12 and 18 in FIG. 1 filed 06/20/2025 are not clearly pointing to a particular structure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the via to the top transducer electrode and the via to the bottom transducer electrode described in [0053] of the PG Pub as being in FIG. 4B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show pixel transducer 102 as described in the specification [0053], the mixer-first style architecture in [0046]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "12" and "18" have both been used to designate the transmit circuit in FIG. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "12" and "18" have both been used to designate the driver circuit in FIG. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: FIG. 611 in [0056]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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, 5, 8-12, and 17-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “the wiring having a routing capacitance so that the baseband amplifier, the output select switch, and the wiring will filter any higher order mixing products of the passive mixer”, in lines 17-19, while support could be found for the transducer itself works as a RF filter so that only the frequencies at which ultrasound is present are received (see [0046]); mixers typically must be followed by a filter to filter out higher order mixing products, requiring large capacitors (see [0048]); the amplifier 406 also serves a dual-purpose as a base-band filter due to the frequency response of the amplifier (see [0058]); the Switches are used to connect the transducer to the transmit or receive circuits during the transmit and receive phases, respectively (see [0044]), due to the acoustic echoes are delayed from the transmit pulse, there is a window of time during when the transmit (TX) switch can be opened and the receive (RX) switch connected so that the transducer is not get driven by the transmitter during receiving the acoustic echoes and so that the receive amplifier is not get saturated by the transmit pulse when transmitting (see [0044]); a circuit using the analog output line wiring parasitics as a sample and hold using the output select switch in a pixel as a sampling switch (see [0050]); the baseband amplifier is followed by a switch that is used to connect the output of the amplifier to the output line (see [0051]); the output selection switch can also be used to implement a sample and hold to reduce ADC (analog-to-digital converter) speed requirement, due to the wiring capacitance of the output line quite large, which is shared among multiple pixels (see [0051]); a control signal can be used to turn on and off the transmit and receive circuits within a pixel (see [0052]); fast switching select RF switch is used to select between the un-shifted LO and the 90-degrees-shifted LO (see [0060]); dependent on the width of the pulse, there is a window of tens of nanoseconds of time in which the mixer LO can be switched (see [0061]).
However, this does not provide support for what is claimed, and [0048] has been pointed to for these new limitations in applicant' s remarks, however, the cited subject matter does not provide support for the limitations as presently claimed. The absence of support for the recited limitations as rejected raises doubt to regarding at the time the application was filed, if the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. These claims and claims dependent thereon are deemed to failing to comply with the written description requirement. This is a WRITTEN DESCRIPTION rejection.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 12-17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the output select switch is connected to wiring having a routing capacitance so that the baseband amplifier, the output select switch, and the wiring will filter any higher order mixing products of the passive mixer”, in lines 17-19, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear out the output switch is functionally and structurally configured to provide the baseband amplifier, the output select switch, and the wiring with a filtering ability/function of higher order mixing products and how the higher order mixing products are constructed in the claim to be functionally and structurally part of the passive mixer. It is also unclear if the filter[ing] of the higher order mixing products by the baseband amplifier, the output select switch, and the wiring through the output select switch being connected to the wiring is required for the operation of the system of claim 1, as there is no active step recited in which the baseband amplifier, the output select switch, and the wiring perform an active step of filtering. Nor is there a functional limitation recited requiring and outlining what/which products of the passive mixer include or are comprised of higher order mixing products and what components are included in and/or defined as the “products”. Therefore, the limitations have been interpreted as intended use, rather than be a requirement of the claim.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the ultrasonic transducer pixel" in in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 does not recite prior nor does parent claim 10 or parent claim 1, via claim 10, recite an ultrasonic transducer pixel.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “pixel” in claim 13 is used by the claim to mean “an ultrasound transducer and associated circuitry for transmission and reception” while the accepted meaning is “an intensity value of a digital image at the locations of a discrete rectangular grid; each intensity value at each location is a pixel”, as defined by the Dictionary of Computer Vision and Image Processing. Accordingly, the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 17-18 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
Claim 13 recites “a reference pixel circuit formed by a layer covering a backside of one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits, and wherein a difference between received voltages of first output at least one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits and a second output from the reference pixel circuit is amplified to achieve a higher sensitivity output” in lines 11-13 and 14-16, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the reception of voltages of first output at least one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits and a second output from the reference pixel circuit is required by the claim, as there is no step that actively recites the system performing a function of receiving voltages of a first output nor a second output. Therefore, this limitation has been interpreted as intended use.
Further, it is unclear if applicant meant that the first output is at but from a separate structure of the at least one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits or if applicant meant the first output from at least one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits. It is also not clear if the generation of the first output at the at least one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits is required by the claim, as the claim does not recite an active step of outputting or generating the first output from the at least one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits or other structure which generates the first output. Therefore, this limitation has been interpreted as intended use and not required by the claim. The second output and associated limitation is also rejected for the same reasons outlined immediately above.
It is also unclear if the at least one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits from which the first output is recited at being, is the same one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits having where a layer covering a backside thereof, is where the reference pixel being “formed”.
Additionally, it is not clear if the difference between the received voltages of the first output and the second output is required for the functionality of the system of claim 13, as there is no active step that recites that the difference as being actively performed. It is not clear, what structure determines the difference, as it appears this limitation is intended use and has therefore been interpreted accordingly. Nor does the amplify[cation] of the difference, as there is not active step performing amplification nor a structure recited for performing the amplification. Accordingly, these limitations have been interpreted as intended use and not required for the function of the claims.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “pixel” in claim 13 is used by the claim to mean “an ultrasound transducer and associated circuitry for transmission and reception” while the accepted meaning is “an intensity value of a digital image at the locations of a discrete rectangular grid; each intensity value at each location is a pixel”, as defined by the Dictionary of Computer Vision and Image Processing. Accordingly, the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 14 recites “further comprising a local oscillator (LO) switching circuit” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structure of claim further comprises the local oscillator (LO) switching scheme. In [0060] of the specification, FIG. 8 is indicated as showing the LO switching scheme, however, there is not a single structure designated as a stand alone LO switching “circuit”.
Claim 16 is also rejected for reciting the same and/or similar limitation outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the one or more pixels" in in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 does not recite prior nor does parent claim 13 recite one or more pixels.
Further, claim 16 recites “a single transmit phase shifter for an array of the one or more pixels or a transmit phase shifter for a per row or a per column of the one or more pixels in an array of the one or more pixels” in lines 1-4, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the single transmit phase shifter is required for the array of the one; or if the transmit phase shifter is required for more pixels or the per row of the one or more pixels in an array of the one or more pixels; or if the transmit phase shifter is required for the per column of the one or more pixels in an array of the one or more pixels; as applicant has not positively recited nor claimed the structural and functional relationships for either the single transmit phase shifter nor the transmit phase shifter with the array of the one or more pixels or the one or more pixels in an array of the one or more pixels. Therefore, the limitations have been interpreted to be intended use. it is also unclear if the array in claim 16 is meant to refer to the array recited in parent claim 13, on which claim 16 dependents.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the pixel" in in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 does not recite prior nor does parent claim 1 recite a pixel.
Further, claim 17 recites “a sampling switch and a storage capacitor implemented within the pixel to form a sample and hold circuit within the pixel” in lines 2-3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the sampling switch and storage capacitor, and by what structure, are “implemented” to form a sample and hold circuit within a pixel. It is also unclear if the implementation of the sampling switch and storage capacitor is required by the claim, as there is no active step recited for the implementation being performed, nor of the “forming” of the same and hold circuit. Therefore, these limitations have been interpreted as intended use.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 18 recites “a pixel level analog-to-digital converter (ADC) integrated within an area of one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits or a group of ultrasonic transducer circuits of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits” in lines 1-4, it is unclear to what a “pixel level” applicant refers. It is also unclear if the one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits is meant to include or read on the one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits having the backside with the layer that forms the reference pixel circuit. Or if the one ultrasonic transducer circuit of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits having the backside with the layer that forms the reference pixel circuit is included in the group of ultrasonic transducer circuits of the array of ultrasonic transducer circuits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM 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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798