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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species A in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
[T]he Office has failed to show that the alleged subcombination (Invention I) has utility separate from the combination (Invention II). The Office's assertion that the subcombination has separate utility such as to form a device not including transducer arrays and without varying a distribution of the two or more sub-elements along at least one of an azimuth and an elevation direction to have frequency apodization and frequency agility is speculative and unsupported by sufficient evidence.
Furthermore, both Inventions I and II are directed to methods for forming multi-frequency transducers and share the fundamental technical features of combining multiple sub-elements with different resonance frequencies. As such, due to an overlap of recited features, a search burden has not been established.
The examiner has reviewed the restriction and election requirements and hereby withdraws the election of species requirement in light of the prior art.
Regarding the restriction between Inventions I and II, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to claim 14, Invention II is drawn to a combination of features, including broadly recited combining two or more comb structures into a single acoustic stack, and further requires separating the single acoustic stack into transducer arrays, and varying a distribution of two or more sub elements along at least one of azimuth and an elevation direction to have frequency apodization and frequency agility. Claim 14 is essentially drawn to how to use separate transducer arrays, each including at least one transducer. Invention I is drawn to the specifics of combining a first and second comb structure, along with other steps, to form a plurality of multifrequency transducers which have not yet been separated into transducer arrays. Regarding Applicant’s argument that “The Office's assertion that the subcombination has separate utility such as to form a device not including transducer arrays and without varying a distribution of the two or more sub-elements along at least one of an azimuth and an elevation direction to have frequency apodization and frequency agility is speculative and unsupported by sufficient evidence.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It should first be noted that “arrays” as applied to claim 14 refers to separated parts of the single acoustic stack, and may have one or more individual transducers (see language of claim 1), whereas throughout this office action the examiner refers to arrays of piezoelectric elements or transducers which have not been separated from each other into separate transducer arrays. In saying the subcombination has separate utility such as to form a device not including transducer arrays, the examiner was referring to forming a device not including separated arrays as required by claim 14. As is shown in the art rejections below, the prior art teaches forming ultrasound transducer devices in which the individual transducers are part of a block, essentially, and can be used as manufactured, in an ultrasound probe. Moreover, the prior art shows manufacturing of devices having plural transducer elements without varying a distribution of the two or more sub-elements along at least one of an azimuth and an elevation direction to have frequency apodization and frequency agility.
Alternatively, if Applicant continues to disagree, restriction between the two inventions is still deemed to be proper because the two inventions can also be also be considered directed to related processes (see one embodiment described at [0161] and another embodiment described at [0162]).
As per MPEP § 806.05(j), related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. In the instant case, the inventions have different effect: Invention I results in a acoustic stack coupled to a base package and to a matching layer block and a backing layer. Invention II results in separated arrays of transducers, arranged with varying distribution of two or more sub-elements to obtain specific effects of frequency apodization and frequency agility. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. The inventions are said to be mutually exclusive (not overlapping in scope) because, although related, each of the inventions is drawn to a feature not disclosed for the other invention. Invention I requires forming a third acoustic stack by coupling the interdigitated structure to a base package; and coupling the third acoustic stack to a matching layer block and a backing layer block to form a plurality of multi-frequency transducers, which is not disclosed for Invention II. Invention II requires separating the single acoustic stack into transducer arrays, each of the transducer arrays including at least one transducer; and varying a distribution of the two or more sub-elements along at least one of an azimuth and an elevation direction to have frequency apodization and frequency agility, which is not specifically disclosed for Invention I. Moreover, as noted above, the disclosure explicitly discusses these inventions as separate embodiments (see para. [0161] and [0162]).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US2004/0227429A1) in view of Saito (US2010/0066207A1).
Yin discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 1A-1D and 3A-3J) limitations not disclosed are crossed out, below):
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
forming a first comb structure (10’, Fig. 1B) with a first sub-element (14) having a first resonance frequency (inherently, it has a resonance frequency);
forming a second comb structure (10”, Fig. 1B), complementary in geometry to the first comb structure with a second sub-element (14) having a second resonance frequency (inherently, it has a resonance frequency; note that the claim does not require the first and second frequency to be different);
combining (see Fig. 1B) the first and second comb structures to form an interdigitated structure (see Fig. 1C, then further processed as 20 in Figs. 1D, 3A, and 3B);
forming a third acoustic stack (30 of Fig. 3E, further processed to a final structure 40 of Fig. 3J) by coupling (see Fig. 3D) the interdigitated structure (20’ of Fig. 3C, same as 20 of Fig. 3B) to a base package (20” in Fig. 3C); and
1.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising dicing (see Fig. 3A and 3B) the interdigitated structure (20 of Figs. 3A and 3B) prior to coupling the interdigitated structure to the base package and coupling the diced interdigitated structure (shown as 20’ in Fig. 3C) to a third comb structure (20” of Fig. 3C), and further comprising dicing the interdigitated structure a number times equal to a number of additional sub-elements (24 of 20”) to be incorporated into the interdigitated structure (number of cutouts 22 of 20’ in Fig. 3C match the number of 24 of 20”).
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein coupling the diced interdigitated structure to the third comb structure incorporates at least one additional sub-element (portion of 24 of 20” in Fig. 2C, to the left of 16) with a different resonance frequency from either of the first and second sub-elements (14 of 10’ and 10” of Fig. 1C) into the interdigitated structure.
Claim 9. The method of claim 7, wherein dicing the interdigitated structure includes cutting kerfs 22, Fig. 3B; see [0055] and [0056]) into the interdigitated structure that are uniformly spaced apart (see Fig. 3B).
Claim 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the third comb structure also has uniformly spaced apart kerfs and a geometry complementary to a geometry of the diced interdigitated structure. See Fig. 3C and [0055].
Yin discloses the claimed invention, except for coupling the third acoustic stack to a matching layer block and a backing layer block to form a plurality of multi-frequency transducers.
However, such features are conventional. Saito teaches (see Figs. 5A and 5B) an ultrasound probe including multiple piezoelectric elements 1 coupled to a backing layer block 3 and to a matching layer block 2. See [0180].
In view of the teachings of Saito, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to couple the structure 40 of Fig. 3J of Yin to a backing layer block and a matching layer block as is conventional in the art, to implement a functional ultrasound transducer.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view Saito, further in view of Daloz (US2018/0169701A1).
Yin further disclosed the claimed invention as follows:
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising forming the first comb structure (10’, Fig. 1B) from a first acoustic stack (10 of Fig. 1A prior to forming slots 12; see [0045]), the first acoustic stack having
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein forming the first comb structure includes dicing a first set of kerfs (12 of 10’, Fig. 1B; see [0045]) into the first acoustic stack to form a first set of fins (14 of 10’), the first set of kerfs extending downwards from a top surface of the first acoustic stack and wherein forming the second comb structure includes dicing a second set of kerfs (12 of 10”, Fig. 1B) into the second acoustic stack to form a second set of fins (14 of 10”), the second set of kerfs extending upwards from a bottom surface of the first acoustic stack.
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein forming the first and second comb structures further includes forming the first set of fins of the first comb structure with dimensions to allow the first set of fins to be inserted into the second set of kerfs of the second comb structure and forming the second set of fins of the second comb structure with dimensions to allow the second set of fins to be inserted into the first set of kerfs of the first comb structure. See Fig. 1B.
Yin, as modified in view of Saito, renders obvious the claimed invention, except for the limitations crossed out above. Saito teaches the matching layer block 2 including a shared acoustic matching layer 2c, with additional individual matching layers 2a and 2b for each of the piezoelectric elements. See [0180] an Fig. 5A.
Daloz teaches (refer to Fig. 2) a method of manufacturing ultrasound transducers, the method comprising forming a first comb structure (220) from a first acoustic stack (210), the first acoustic stack having a first matching layer (213), a first sub-element (212), and a first backing layer (211), the first matching layer including one or more layers configured to be electrically conductive (see “The matching layer may be made of conductive material such as silver epoxy, graphite, or aluminum.” in [0036]) along a vertical axis of the first acoustic stack.
In view of the teachings of Daloz, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to obtain the individual matching layers of modified Yin (corresponding to 2a and 2b of Saito) by performing the process of modified Yin on an acoustic stack such as stack 210 of Daloz, as the slab 10 from which the first and second combs of modified Yin are formed, with predictable results. A shared matching layer corresponding to layer 5c taught by Saito would then be provided for the overall array. Further, whereas modified Yin does not include individual backing layers, utilizing a stack as taught by Daloz also results in individual backing layers below each piezoelectric element. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to still attach this structure to an actual backing layer block, as taught by Saito (3 in Fig. 5A), to provide sufficient mechanical support for the array as a whole.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Saito and Daloz, further in view of Nakaya (US4658176).
Yin further discloses the claimed invention as follows:
Claim 5. The method of claim 3, wherein dicing the first set of kerfs into the first acoustic stack and dicing the second set of kerfs into the second acoustic stack includes configuring the first and second sets of kerfs with a
Claim 6. The method of claim 3, wherein forming the first and second acoustic stacks includes dicing the acoustic stacks so that at least one of the first set of kerfs and the second set of kerfs are
In modified Yin, the kerfs 12 in the first acoustic stack 10’ and the kerfs 12 of the second acoustic stack 10” are spaced uniformly.
However, it is known in the art to either vary the width of individual piezoelectric elements (605, 606, 607 in Fig. 6 of Nakaya) or to vary the spacing (d1, d2, d3 in Fig. 7) of the piezoelectric elements (701) in an array for an ultrasound transducer, for reducing a grating lobe (see col. 3, ln. ln. 50 to col. 4, lns. 24) and abstract. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the process of modified Yin, such that the width and/or spacing of kerfs in the first and second acoustic stacks are varied, such that the final structure (40, Fig. 3J) has acoustic elements sized/spaced to reduce a grating lobe, as taught by Nakaya.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Saito, further in view of Nakaya.
In Yin, the kerfs 22 in the interdigitated comb structure 20’ and the kerfs 22 of the third comb structure 20’ are spaced uniformly.
However, it is known in the art to either vary the width of individual piezoelectric elements (605, 606, 607 in Fig. 6 of Nakaya) or to vary the spacing (d1, d2, d3 in Fig. 7) of the piezoelectric elements (701) in an array for an ultrasound transducer, for reducing a grating lobe (see col. 3, ln. ln. 50 to col. 4, lns. 24) and abstract. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the process of modified Yin, such that the width and/or spacing of kerfs in the interdigitated comb structure and the third comb are varied, such that the final structure (40 of Fig. 3J) has acoustic elements sized/spaced to reduce a grating lobe, as taught by Nakaya.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Saito and Daloz.
Regarding claim 13, Yin discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 1A-1D and 3A-3J) limitations not disclosed are crossed out, below; note that Yin is interpreted differently than for claim 1 above):
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
forming a first comb structure (10’, Fig. 1B) with a first sub-element (14) having a first resonance frequency (inherently, it has a resonance frequency);
forming a second comb structure (10”, Fig. 1B), complementary in geometry to the first comb structure with a second sub-element (14) having a second resonance frequency (inherently, it has a resonance frequency; note that the claim does not require the first and second frequency to be different);
combining (see Fig. 1B) the first and second comb structures to form an interdigitated structure (see Fig. 1C, then further processed as 20 in Figs. 1D, 3A, and 3B);
Claim 13. The method of claim 1,
Yin teaches a method in which spaces 36 between piezoelectric elements are filled with a polymer (see end of [0062]), but may also be left unfilled (see [0047]).
However, it is also known in the art to fill the gap between transducer elements with a material such as graphite, porous graphite filled with resin, stainless steel, or aluminum. Daloz, for example, teaches coupling a comb 220 including an array of transducer elements to a base package 230 which may be made of graphite, porous graphite filled with resin, stainless steel, or aluminum (see Fig. 2 and [0038]).
Taking into consideration the combined teachings of Yin and Daloz, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to fill the gaps 36 with graphite, porous graphite filled with resin, stainless steel, or aluminum, as an alternative gap-filling material conventional in the art. In order to do so, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to leave all the gaps 16, 26, 36 unfilled, and, after removing the portion extending above line 37 of Fig. 3I (see [0063]), omit the further removal of the portion below line 3J and, instead, combining the remaining structure with a suitably-sized base package as taught by Daloz, followed by removing the portion below line 39, to thereby obtain a structure as in Fig. 3J of Yin, but with the gaps 36 filled with a material as taught by Daloz.
Regarding the matching layer block and backing layer block, such features are conventional. Saito teaches (see Figs. 5A and 5B) an ultrasound probe including multiple piezoelectric elements 1 coupled to a backing layer block 3 and to a matching layer block 2. See [0180].
In view of the teachings of Saito, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to couple the structure 40 of Fig. 3J of Yin to a backing layer block and a matching layer block as is conventional in the art, to implement a functional ultrasound transducer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 5239736 discloses an invention similar to Yin. .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 Transducers operate over a frequency range (i.e., bandwidth), not at a single frequency.