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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US6153967, hereinafter Kobayashi).
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 19, Kobayashi discloses an ultrasound probe (Figs. 1 and 5)comprising: an ultrasound transducer that includes a piezoelectric element (1) configured to transmit and receive ultrasound waves to and from a subject; and an adjustment layer that is laminated on the piezoelectric element, the adjustment layer being provided with a cut surface that is cut by a blade configured to cut the piezoelectric element, the adjustment layer including an adjustment material configured to improve cutting performance of the blade. Kobayashi discloses in Column 4:15-20, that the second metal layer (2’) with predetermined hardness and thickness works against cutting blade loading, by scraping off the backing material adhered to the cutting blade. These factors serve to prevent cuttability from degrading during the dicing process as well as preventing cracking and chipping as is conventionally encountered.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi discloses the matching layers (4).
Regarding claim 3, since the adjustment layer is the metal layer (2), the limitation of the adjustment layer is laminated on the piezoelectric element in the direction in which the piezoelectric element transmits and receives the ultrasound waves is anticipated.
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 1 shows the second metal layers (2’) laminated in contact with the acoustic matching layer (4).
Regarding claim 6, the ultrasound transducer includes a substrate layer including a flexible board (7) electrically connected to the piezoelectric element.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses the backing layer (3).
Regarding claims 9-11, Kobayashi discloses the second metal layer (2b, 2b’), one in a direction in which the piezoelectric applies the ultrasound wave, and one in a direction opposite to a direction in which the piezoelectric element transmits and receives ultrasound waves, performing as the adjustment layer. See column 4:6-35.
Regarding claim 13, the piezoelectric element includes a piezoelectric single crystal (Col. 3:16-17 and Example 1).
Regarding claim 14, the adjustment material is a material configured to perform at least one of dressing and pre-cutting on the blade.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kobayashi discloses the metal layer comprising a predetermined hardness and thickness to scrape off the backing material adhered to the cutting blade. Therefore, the adjustment material comprising an abrasive grain that being finer than an abrasive grain used in the blade or a material being harder than an adhesive used in the blade is anticipated. (See Col. 4: 15-35)
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi discloses that the same principle can be applied to a different ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, transmitting or receiving devices
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 of this title, 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 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Kobayashi discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the matching layer or the backing layer as the adjustment layer of the ultrasound probe. Kobayashi discloses a layer comprising a predetermined hardness and thickness to scrape off the backing material adhered to the cutting blade. Furthermore, Kobayashi discloses that such factors serve to prevent cuttability from degrading during the dicing process, which is exactly the purpose of the instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the teachings of Kobayashi to determine specific hardness and thicknesses in different layers to suppress the degradation of the dicing process.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Wakabayashi (US20190117188, hereinafter Wakabayashi).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose a dematching layer laminated on the piezoelectric element in a direction opposite to a direction in which the piezoelectric element transmits and receives the ultrasound waves and the dematching layer having higher acoustic impedance than the piezoelectric element. Wakabayashi discloses an ultrasonic transducer comprising a piezoelectric layer (71) and a ground electrode (72a) formed of a conductive material having higher conductivity than the acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric element and functioning as a dematching layer to reflect sound waves toward the backing layer and improve sensitivity of the transducer (paragraph [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a dematching layer to reduce insertion loss, improve the frequency bandwidth and improve sensitivity of the ultrasonic transducer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights