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 .
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.
Claims 1,10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (US 2013/0076208) in view of Aoki (US 2011/0121687).
With respect to claim 1, Osawa discloses an ultrasonic transducer module (Fig 2), comprising: a first electrode layer (item 22); a second electrode layer (item 23); a first piezoelectric material layer (item 21), disposed between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (Fig 2); a third electrode layer (item 42), wherein the second electrode layer is disposed between the first piezoelectric material layer and the third electrode layer (Fig 2); a fourth electrode layer (item 43); a second piezoelectric material layer (item 41), disposed between the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer (Fig 2); and an insulation layer (item 3), disposed between the second electrode layer and the third electrode layer (Fig 2).
Osawa does not disclose that a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to frequency corresponding to a thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer in the second piezoelectric material layer is λ1, a thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is T1, and ((2N-1)/4-1/8)×λ1 < T1 < ((2N-1)/4+1/8)×λ1, where N is a positive integer.
Aoki teaches a piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer in which a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to frequency corresponding to a thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer in the second piezoelectric material layer is λ1, a thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is T1, and ((2N-1)/4-1/8)×λ1 < T1 < ((2N-1)/4+1/8)×λ1, where N is a positive integer (Paragraph 46, wherein Aoki teaches that the thickness of the piezoelectric layer may be a quarter wavelength, which is exactly in the middle of the claimed range of thicknesses).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the quart-wavelength thickness of the piezoelectric layer taught by Aoki with the piezoelectric ultrasound transducer of Osawa as it has been held that a mere change in relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777), and as Aoki recognizes a quarter-wavelength thickness for the piezoelectric layer of an ultrasound transducer as conventional, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the conventional quarter-wavelength thickness taught by Aoki for the device of Osawa.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Osawa and Aoki et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1. Osawa discloses that ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1, wherein a width of the first piezoelectric material layer is smaller than or equal to a width of the second piezoelectric material layer (Fig 2, wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers have the same width).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Osawa and Aoki discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1. Osawa discloses that a central axis of the first piezoelectric material layer and a central axis of the second piezoelectric material layer are aligned with each other (Fig 2).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa in view of Aoki and Kiyose et al. (US 2015/0105663).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Osawa and Aoki discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1. Aoki discloses a first matching layer (item 41), wherein the fourth electrode layer is disposed between the second piezoelectric material layer and the first matching layer (Fig 1).
Neither Osawa nor Aoki disclose that an average value of the frequency corresponding to the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer and frequency corresponding to the thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is f, a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to f in the first matching layer is λ2, a thickness of the first matching layer is T2, and ((2K-1)/4-1/8)×λ2 < T2 < ((2K-1)/4+1/8)×λ2, where K is a positive integer.
Kiyose et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which an average value of the frequency corresponding to the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer and frequency corresponding to the thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is f, a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to f in the first matching layer is λ2, a thickness of the first matching layer is T2, and ((2K-1)/4-1/8)×λ2 < T2 < ((2K-1)/4+1/8)×λ2, where K is a positive integer (Paragraph 14, wherein Kiyose et al. discloses that the thickness of the matching layer is an odd multiple of a quarter wavelength).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the quarter-wavelength thickness of the matching layers taught by Kiyose et al. with the ultrasound transducer of Osawa, as modified by Aoki, for the benefit of reducing undesired reflections of acoustic energy (Paragraph 14 of Kiyose et al.).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Osawa, Aoki, and Kiyose et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 2, Aoki discloses a second matching layer (item 42), wherein the first matching layer is disposed between the fourth electrode layer and the second matching layer (Fig 1). Kiyose et al. discloses that a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to f in the second matching layer is λ3, a thickness of the second matching layer is T3, and ((2M-1)/4-1/8)×λ3 < T3 < ((2M-1)/4+1/8)×λ3, where M is a positive integer (Paragraph 14).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa in view of Aoki and Simon Hsu (US 2003/0173870).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Osawa and Aoki discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1. Osawa discloses that the first piezoelectric material layer is divided into a plurality of segments in an extending direction (Fig 1), the first electrode layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction (Fig 1), and the third electrode layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction (Fig 1).
Osawa does not disclose that the second piezoelectric material layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction, and the third electrode layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction.
Simon Hsu teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which the second piezoelectric material layer (item 24) is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction (Fig 3).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the divided second piezoelectric layer of Simon Hsu with the piezoelectric ultrasound transducer of Osawa for the benefit of allowing both the piezoelectric elements of both the first and second piezoelectric layers to be individually driven (Fig 3 and paragraph 20 of Simon Hsu).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Osawa, Aoki, and Simon Hsu discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 5, wherein the first electrode layer, the first piezoelectric material layer, and the second electrode layer form a linear array ultrasonic transducer, and the third electrode layer, the second piezoelectric material layer, and the fourth electrode layer form another linear array ultrasonic transducer.(Fig 2).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Osawa, Aoki, and Simon Hsu discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 5, wherein the first electrode layer, the first piezoelectric material layer, and the second electrode layer form a linear array ultrasonic transducer, and the third electrode layer, the second piezoelectric material layer, and the fourth electrode layer form a phase array ultrasonic transducer (Fig 2, wherein a “phase array” corresponds to functional language describing the use of the device and does not further limit the structural features of the claimed device).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa in view of Aoki and Hossack et al. (US 2009/0048519).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Osawa and Aoki discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1.
Osawa does not disclose that a width of the first piezoelectric material layer is greater than a width of the second piezoelectric material layer.
Hossack et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which a width of the first piezoelectric material layer (item 308) is greater than a width of the second piezoelectric material layer (Fig 3, item 304).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relative widths of the first and second piezoelectric layers of Hossack et al. with the piezoelectric ultrasound transducer of Osawa as it has been held that a mere change in relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Osawa and Aoki discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1.
Osawa does not disclose that a central axis of the first piezoelectric material layer is offset from a central axis of the second piezoelectric material layer.
Hossack et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which a central axis of the first piezoelectric material layer (item 308) is offset from a central axis of the second piezoelectric material layer (Fig 3, item 304).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relative widths of the first and second piezoelectric layers of Hossack et al. with the piezoelectric ultrasound transducer of Osawa as it has been held that a mere change in relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777).
Claims 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa in view of Hossack et al.
With respect to claim 14, Osawa discloses an ultrasonic transducer module (Fig 2), comprising: a first electrode layer (item 22); a second electrode layer (item 23); a first piezoelectric material layer (item 21), disposed between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (Fig 2); a third electrode layer (item 42), wherein the second electrode layer is disposed between the first piezoelectric material layer and the third electrode layer (Fig 2); a fourth electrode layer (item 43); a second piezoelectric material layer (item 41), disposed between the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer (Fig 2); and an insulation layer (item 3), disposed between the second electrode layer and the third electrode layer (Fig 2), wherein an absolute value of a difference between a thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer and a thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is less than 10% of the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer (Fig 2).
Osawa does not disclose that a width of the first piezoelectric material layer is d, a width of the second piezoelectric material layer is D, and d<4D/5.
Hossack et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which a width of the first piezoelectric material layer (item 304) is d, a width of the second piezoelectric material (item 308) layer is D, and d<4D/5 (Fig 3).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relative widths of the first and second piezoelectric layers of Hossack et al. with the piezoelectric ultrasound transducer of Osawa as it has been held that a mere change in relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Osawa and Hossack et al. discloses the ultrasound transducer module according to claim 14. Osawa discloses a driver, electrically connected to the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, the third electrode layer, and the fourth electrode layer, and configured to simultaneously drive the first piezoelectric material layer and the second piezoelectric material layer (Paragraphs 41-43).
With respect to claim 20, Osawa discloses an ultrasonic transducer module (Fig 2), comprising: a first electrode layer (item 22); a second electrode layer (item 23); a first piezoelectric material layer (item 21), disposed between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (Fig 2); a third electrode layer (item 42), wherein the second electrode layer is disposed between the first piezoelectric material layer and the third electrode layer (Fig 2); a fourth electrode layer (item 43); a second piezoelectric material layer (item 41), disposed between the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer (Fig 2); and an insulation layer 9item 3), disposed between the second electrode layer and the third electrode layer (Fig 2), wherein, an absolute value of a difference between a thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer and a thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is less than 10% of the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer (Fig 2).
Osawa does not disclose that a width of the first piezoelectric material layer is different from a width of the second piezoelectric material layer.
Hossack et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which a width of the first piezoelectric material layer (item 308) is different from a width of the second piezoelectric material layer (Fig 3, item 304).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relative widths of the first and second piezoelectric layers of Hossack et al. with the piezoelectric ultrasound transducer of Osawa as it has been held that a mere change in relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa in view of Aoki, Hossack et al. and Kiyose et al.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Osawa, Aoki, and Hossack et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 1. Aoki discloses a first matching layer (item 41), wherein the fourth electrode layer is disposed between the second piezoelectric material layer and the first matching layer (Fig 1).
Neither Osawa nor Aoki disclose that an average value of the frequency corresponding to the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer and frequency corresponding to the thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is f, a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to f in the first matching layer is λ2, a thickness of the first matching layer is T2, and ((2K-1)/4-1/8)×λ2 < T2 < ((2K-1)/4+1/8)×λ2, where K is a positive integer.
Kiyose et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which an average value of the frequency corresponding to the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer and frequency corresponding to the thickness of the second piezoelectric material layer is f, a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to f in the first matching layer is λ2, a thickness of the first matching layer is T2, and ((2K-1)/4-1/8)×λ2 < T2 < ((2K-1)/4+1/8)×λ2, where K is a positive integer (Paragraph 14, wherein Kiyose et al. discloses that the thickness of the matching layer is an odd multiple of a quarter wavelength).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the quarter-wavelength thickness of the matching layers taught by Kiyose et al. with the ultrasound transducer of Osawa, as modified by Aoki, for the benefit of reducing undesired reflections of acoustic energy (Paragraph 14 of Kiyose et al.).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Osawa, Aoki, Hossack et al., and Kiyose et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer module according to claim 2, Aoki discloses a second matching layer (item 42), wherein the first matching layer is disposed between the fourth electrode layer and the second matching layer (Fig 1). Kiyose et al. discloses that a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to f in the second matching layer is λ3, a thickness of the second matching layer is T3, and ((2M-1)/4-1/8)×λ3 < T3 < ((2M-1)/4+1/8)×λ3, where M is a positive integer (Paragraph 14).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa in view of Hossack et al. and Simon Hsu.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Osawa and Hossack et al. discloses the ultrasound transducer module according to claim 14. Osawa discloses that the first piezoelectric material layer is divided into a plurality of segments in an extending direction (Fig 1), the first electrode layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction (Fig 1), and the third electrode layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction (Fig 1).
Osawa does not disclose that the second piezoelectric material layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction, and the third electrode layer is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction.
Simon Hsu teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which the second piezoelectric material layer (item 24) is divided into a plurality of segments in the extending direction (Fig 3).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the divided second piezoelectric layer of Simon Hsu with the piezoelectric ultrasound transducer of Osawa for the benefit of allowing both the piezoelectric elements of both the first and second piezoelectric layers to be individually driven (Fig 3 and paragraph 20 of Simon Hsu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 9, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a wavelength of a sound wave corresponding to the frequency corresponding to the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer in the insulation layer is λ4, and a thickness of the insulation layer is less than one tenth of λ4”in combination with the remaining elements of claim 4.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first electrode layer, the first piezoelectric material layer, and the second electrode layer form an arc-shaped ultrasonic transducer, and the third electrode layer, the second piezoelectric material layer, and the fourth electrode layer form an arc-shaped ultrasonic transducer” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 8.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first electrode layer, the first piezoelectric material layer, and the second electrode layer form a single array element circular ultrasonic transducer, and the third electrode layer, the second piezoelectric material layer, and the fourth electrode layer form a single array element circular ultrasonic transducer” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 9.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a wavelength of a sound wave in the insulation layer corresponding to the frequency corresponding to the thickness of the first piezoelectric material layer is λ4, and a thickness of the insulation layer is less than one tenth of λ4” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837