DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Claims 2, 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, and 15-17 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 9, 11-12, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9660554B2) in view of Diest (US 20210066574 A1) and Fjield (US 20030013968 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a substrate[#101 in Fig 1A, 1B];
a plurality of transducer elements stacked on a top of the substrate to be spaced apart from each other[#102, #104 in fig 1A, 1B];
a flexible hinge positioned between the plurality of transducer elements and formed to pass through the substrate[#105 is flexible slot to allow bending that goes through the substrate];
a first ..... layer formed to cover a lower portion of the substrate[#370 in Fig 3A, 3B]; and an actuator layer formed on a bottom of the first ..... layer[#375 in Fig 3B; Col 10, Lines 40-65 have actuator layers for bending].
wherein the flexible hinge comprises: a second polymer layer positioned over a separation space formed between adjacent transducer elements[Col 7; Line 65- Col 8 Line 10 has trench opening filled with polymer];
and a ..... layer extending from a bottom of the second polymer layer and passing through the substrate. [Col 7; Line 65- Col 8 Line 10 has trench opening and space filled]
Huang implies but does not explicitly teach a polymer layer[Col 7 Line 65 to Col 8 Line 10 has polymers as suitable filler materials].
Diest teaches that a first polymer layer formed to cover a lower portion of the substrate;[Fig 1, 16, 17 and 0095-0096 has adhesion layer #160, #1630, #1660, #1730, #1760 which are polymer]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view of the polymer layers of Diest to use polymer layers for its insulating or adhesive properties.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.)
Huang does not explicitly teach liquid metal.
Fyield teaches and a liquid metal layer extending from a bottom of the second polymer layer and passing through the substrate. [0040 has liquid metal layers in transducers]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view of the liquid metal layers of Fjield to use liquid metal layers for properties.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to selecta known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches forming a substrate[#101 in Fig LA, 1B];
stacking a plurality of transducer elements on a top of the substrate to be spaced apart from each other[#102, #104 in fig 1A, 1B];
forming a flexible hinge between the plurality of transducer elements to pass through the substrate[#105 is flexible slot to allow bending that goes through the substrate];
forming a first ..... layer to cover a lower portion of the substrate[#370 in Fig 3A, 3B];
and forming an actuator layer on a bottom of the first ..... layer[#375 in Fig 3B; Col 10, Lines 40-65 have actuator layers for bending].
wherein the forming of the flexible hinge comprises: a second polymer layer positioned over a separation space formed between adjacent transducer elements[Col 7; Line 65- Col 8 Line 10 has trench opening filled with polymer];
and forming a ..... layer extending from a bottom of the second polymer layer and passing through the substrate. [Col 7; Line 65- Col 8 Line 10 has trench opening and space filled
Huang implies but does not explicitly teach a polymer layer[Col 7 Line 65 to Col 8 Line 10 has polymers as suitable filler materials].
Diest teaches that a first polymer layer formed to cover a lower portion of the substrate;[Fig 1, 16, 17 and 0095-0096 has adhesion layer #160, #1630, #1660, #1730, #1760 which are polymer]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view of the polymer layers of Diest to use polymer layers for its insulating or adhesive properties.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.Huang, as modified, teaches wherein the flexible hinge
Huang does not explicitly teach liquid metal.
Fyield teaches and a liquid metal layer extending from a bottom of the second polymer layer and passing through the substrate. [0040 has liquid metal layers in transducers]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view of the liquid metal layers of Fjield to use liquid metal layers for properties.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to selecta known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.)
Regarding claim 5, Huang, as modified, teaches that wherein the second polymer layer comprises polyimide.[Col 7; Line 65- Col 8 Line 10 has polyimide]
Regarding claim 11, Huang, as modified, teaches wherein the forming of the second ..... layer comprises: stacking a polymeric material on the substrate and the plurality of transducer elements[Abstract; Claim 1 has layers being formed by stacking and patterning; Col 7 Line 65 to Col 8 Line 10 has polymers as suitable filler materials ];
and forming the second ..... layer by patterning the polymeric material. [Abstract and claim 1 has patterning being used; Col7 Line 65 to Col 8 Line 10 has polymers as suitable filler materials]
Huang does not explicitly teach polymer layer.
Diest teaches wherein the forming of the second polymer layer comprises: stacking a polymeric material on the substrate and the plurality of transducer elements[Fig 1, 16, 17 and 0095-0096 has adhesion layer #160, #1630, #1660, #1730, #1760 which are polymer on the substrate and transducers];
and forming the second polymer layer by patterning the polymeric material. [0041 and 0083 have patterning to form layers]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view of the polymer layers of Diest to use polymer layers for its insulating or adhesive properties.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Huang, as modified, teaches wherein the forming of the liquid metal layer comprises: forming a trench by etching the substrate positioned on the bottom of the second polymer layer[Col 12 lines 1-5 and col 16, Lines 50-65 have etching]; and forming the ..... layer by filling the trench with a....[Col 7; Line 65- Col 8 Line 10 has trench opening and space filled]
Huang does not explicitly teach liquid metal.
Fyield teaches and a liquid metal layer extending from a bottom of the second polymer layer and passing through the substrate. [0040 has liquid metal layers in transducers]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang formed by known methods of etching in view of the liquid metal layers of Fjield to use liquid metal layers for properties.
Regarding claim 15, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the stacking of the polymeric material comprises stacking polyimide through spin coating.
Diest teaches wherein the stacking of the polymeric material comprises stacking polyimide through spin coating. [0059 has spin coating];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view known methods such as spin coating of Diest to apply the polymer.
Regarding claim 19, Huang, as modified, teaches that the ultrasonic transducer of claim 1; and a controller configured to control the ultrasonic transducer.[Col 15; Lines 45 -5Ohas CMUTs being controlled meaning there is a controller]
Regarding claim 20, Huang, as modified, teaches that wherein the controller is further configured to control a flexible hinge included in the ultrasonic transducer and an actuator layer included in the ultrasonic transducer independently of driving the ultrasonic transducer. [Col 13 Line 60 to Col 14 Line 5 has bending being controlled meaning it is controlled independent of the transducer]
Claims 3, 8, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9660554B2) in view of Diest(US 20210066574 A1) and Fjield (US 20030013968 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Fujiwara (US 20190139454 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator layer comprises: an insulating layer formed on the bottom of the first polymer layer; a first electrode layer formed on a bottom of the insulating layer; a dielectric elastomer formed on a bottom of the first electrode layer; and a second electrode layer formed on a bottom of the dielectric elastomer.[Though the actuator does use electric signals to bend in Col 13, Lines 60-65]
Fujiwara [Fig 5; 0047] teaches that wherein the actuator layer comprises: an insulating layer formed on the bottom of the first polymer layer[#34];
a first electrode layer formed on a bottom of the insulating layer[#32];
a dielectric elastomer formed on a bottom of the first electrode layer[#31];
and a second electrode layer formed on a bottom of the dielectric elastomer.[#33]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the bending actuator of Huang in view of the dielectric actuator of Fujiwara to use dielectric actuator for bending.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Huang as modified, teaches wherein the dielectric elastomer bends by a voltage applied to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer when a fusible alloy included in the flexible hinge is in a liquid state. [Col 3, Lines 30-35 has bending based on temperature; Col 13 Line 60 to Col 14 Line 5 has bending based on temperature or electric signal].
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9660554B2) in view of Diest(US 20210066574 A1) and Fjield (US 20030013968 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Dekker (US 20160256133 A1)\.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the first polymer layer comprises polydimethylsiloxane.
Dekker teaches that wherein the first polymer layer comprises polydimethylsiloxane. [0057 has polydimethysiloxane layer for flexible connection]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view of the polydimethysiloxane Dekkers to use such material for its flexible properties.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use polydimethysiloxane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9660554B2) in view of Diest(US 20210066574 A1) and Fjield (US 20030013968 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yanik (US 20200378925 A1) and Wikipedia (2021).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Huang does notexplicitly teach wherein the liquid metal layer comprises a bismuth (Bi)-lead (Pb)-indium (In)-tin (Sn)-cadmium (Cd) fusible alloy.
Yanik teaches wherein the liquid metal layer comprises a bismuth (Bi)-lead (Pb)-indium (In)-tin (Sn)-cadmium (Cd) fusible alloy. [0070 has the same liquid metal alloy used in the acoustic transducer]
Wikipedia teaches that such a metal alloy is considered a fusible alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the transducer of Huang in view of the liquid metal fusible alloy of Yanik and Wikipedia to use liquid metal alloy based on its properties.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use fusible alloys, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid metal layer undergoes a phase transition from solid to liquid based on heat generated by a voltage applied to the substrate.
Wikipedia teaches wherein the liquid metal layer undergoes a phase transition from solid to liquid based on heat generated by a voltage applied to the substrate. [Wikipedia shows fusible alloy of the claimed metal has a low melting point].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8, applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically the combination of the prior art of Huang has the trench opening for filling and the art of Fjield has the use of liquid metal meaning using liquid metal filing in the opening would result in a combination that is being claimed. Furthermore the exact metal composition being claimed in subsequent dependent claims are recited in Yanik meaning the prior art reads on the claim as it has the same material and thus the same properties.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645