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
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, 6-8, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (2019, APL) and Lee (US 2023/0054652 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Craig teaches an acoustic matching member for transmitting an ultrasonic wave from an incident medium (I) to a target medium (T) such that 90% or more of the ultrasonic wave is transmitted through a barrier (B) disposed between the incident medium (I) and the target medium (T), comprising [[fig. 1] shows water layer, metamaterial layer, skull layer, and brain layer; [abstract] numerical study shows a near perfect, unidirectional transmission through the skull when the NHCMM]:
the acoustic matching member being configured in consideration of overall acoustic wave-propagation characteristics of an I-B-T structure including an acoustic impedance (ZB), a thickness (dB), and a [wavenumber (kB)] of the barrier (B) [[pg. 2, col. 1] opposite density and sound speed result in an identical acoustic impedance and an opposite refractive index of the NHCMM when compared with the skull. These material parameters suppress the impedance mismatch of the barrier; [pg. 3, col. 1] from our analytical derivation listed above, the density and sound speed of the NHCMM are chosen to be … m/s to avoid singularity in the calculations. The density and sound speed of water and brain (q0 ¼ 1000 kg/m3 and c0 ¼ 1500 m/s) are used in our numerical calculations. The averaged thickness of human skull is L ¼ 1 cm, which is used in this work. All numerical simulations are performed in COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3],
wherein an effective acoustic impedance (ZL) of the acoustic matching member satisfies an impedance matching condition such that an input impedance of the I-B-T structure substantially matches an impedance of the incident medium (I) [[pg. 2, col. 1] physically, the opposite density and sound speed result in an identical acoustic impedance and an opposite refractive index of the NHCMM when compared with the skull; [pg. 2, col. 2] goal of this work focuses on obtaining the material parameters of the NHCMM for noninvasive ultrasonic brain imaging where high frequency acoustic waves are used, we conducted our calculations at 1.5MHz. At this frequency, the measured effective density and sound speed of longitudinal acoustic waves are 1900 kg/m3 and 2835 m/s with an acoustic attenuation of 25 dB through a 4mm thick human skull sample. These acoustic properties are closely equivalent to complex valued material parameters; [fig. 1] simplified model of acoustic wave propagation through the combined NHCMM and skull layer with an incident wave outside of the top part of the patient’s head submerged in water],
wherein a phase characteristic of an ultrasonic wave propagating through the acoustic matching member satisfies a phase change matching condition such that phase delay and phase mismatch caused by the barrier (B) are compensated [[pg. 3, col. 1] sound speeds through the NHCMM and skull are of equal magnitude but opposite sign, resulting in an effective zero refractive index and hence no phase accumulation through the structure; [pg. 3, col. 1] field we look at is 2 cm closer to the tumor than the case where the skull is compensated by the NHCMM due to the lack of phase accumulation across the bilayer].
Craig does not explicitly teach and yet Lee teaches wavenumber [[abstract] matching media for perfect transmission of ultrasonic waves by easily implementing perfect transmission of ultrasonic waves at a boundary between different elastic media through a matching layer; [0004] impedance matching technology; [0015] matching layer may include an elastic metamaterial; [0039] matching layer 101 needs to satisfy a total of six conditions. These six conditions are divided into three generalized phase matching conditions and three generalized impedance matching conditions. The generalized phase matching conditions represent a relationship between wave numbers of the four wave modes formed inside the matching layer 101 and are expressed by Equation 1.; [0040] (ki: wave number of i mode (i=QL+, QL−, QS+, QS−) formed inside the matching layer 101, d: thickness of the matching layer, l, m, n: any integer); [0041] the generalized impedance matching conditions represent a relationship between the impedances of the matching layer 101, the incident medium, and the transmission medium, and are expressed by Equation 2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the matching layer as taught by Craig, with the teaching of Lee of designing phase matching using conditions representing a relationship between wave numbers and wave modes so that matching conditions are known (Lee) [[0040; 0041]].
Regarding claim 6, Craig teaches the acoustic matching member of claim 1, wherein the impedance and the phase change matching conditions are based on a destructive interference condition of reflected waves generated by multiple internal reflections occurring inside the acoustic matching member and the barrier [[pg. 3, col. 1] sound speeds through the NHCMM and skull are of equal magnitude but opposite sign, resulting in an effective zero refractive index and hence no phase accumulation through the structure.25,26 The interference patterns in the bilayer indicate multiple reflections in between the boundaries. Thus, the energy damped by the lossy skull barrier is balanced by the gain of the NHCMM.].
Regarding claim 7, Craig teaches the acoustic matching member of claim 1, wherein a first region of the matching pattern and a second region other than the matching pattern has different media or different thicknesses [[fig. 1] shows four layers including water, metamaterial, skull, brain which are therefore different media].
Regarding claim 8, Craig teaches the acoustic matching member of claim 1 which is positioned between the incident medium and the barrier [[fig. 1] shows metamaterial between probe/water and skull/brain].
Regarding claim 10, Craig teaches the acoustic matching member of claim 1, which is used in ultrasound treatment devices, diagnostic devices, imaging devices, and industrial ultrasound non- destructive testing equipment [[abstract] ultrasound transmission … focused ultrasound used for noninvasive therapies].
Regarding claim 16, Craig teaches an ultrasound treatment device which operates in conjunction with the acoustic matching member of claim 1 [[abstract] ultrasound transmission … focused ultrasound used for noninvasive therapies].
Regarding claim 17, Craig teaches an ultrasound diagnostic device which operates in conjunction with the acoustic matching member of claim 1 [[abstract] ultrasound transmission … focused ultrasound used for noninvasive therapies].
Regarding claim 18, Craig teaches an ultrasound non-destructive testing equipment that operates in conjunction with the acoustic matching member of claim 1 [[abstract] ultrasound transmission … focused ultrasound used for noninvasive therapies].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (2019, APL) and Lee (US 2023/0054652 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa (US 2003/0060708 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Craig does not explicitly teach and yet Ogawa teaches the acoustic matching member of claim 1 including a resin component, and wherein the resin component includes a polyimide resin, an epoxy resin, a glass fiber- reinforced epoxy resin, or a thermoplastic resin [[0029] acoustic matching layer 3 may be constituted by employing Pylex glass (registered trademark) or epoxy resin containing metal powder, by which ultrasonic waves may be easily propagated].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to build the matching layer as taught by Craig, with the acoustic matching layer constituted by employing glass or epoxy resin as taught by Ogawa so that ultrasonic waves may be easily propagated (Ogawa) [[0029]].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (2019, APL) and Lee (US 2023/0054652 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh (US 2013/0195333 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Craig does not explicitly teach and yet Singh teaches the acoustic matching member of claim 1, wherein the matching pattern has an MxN array structure, where M and N are natural numbers greater than zero [[0002] patterning a graded matching layer structure for use in ultrasound transducers; [0014] transducer array includes one or more transducer elements disposed in determined pattern. In addition, the transducer array includes a graded matching layer structure operatively coupled to the transducer array and comprising a plurality of matching layers arranged in a stacked structure, wherein each matching layer in the stacked structure has a different acoustic impedance].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to build the matching layer as taught by Craig, with the acoustic matching layer patterned to match a transducer array so that the stacked structure has a different acoustic impedance (Singh) [[0014]].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (2019, APL) and Lee (US 2023/0054652 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angelsen (US 2009/0182237 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Craig does not explicitly teach and yet Angelsen teaches the acoustic matching member of claim 1, wherein the impedance and the phase change of the acoustic matching member determine density and longitudinal stiffness of the acoustic matching member [[0012] In other situations one needs a common radiation surface for simultaneous transmission of a high frequency (HF) and a low frequency (LF1) pulse with low or controllable phase sliding between the HF and LF1 pulses in an actual imaging range; [0020] center frequency of the LF1 band is then selected at the resonance between this spring and mass where the phase of the impedance into said isolation section matching layer seen from the back is zero. This resonance frequency can be tuned by varying the stiffness of said isolation section matching layer and the mass of the HF piezo and load matching layers; [0077] heaviest materials allows the thinnest layers, and as stated above the materials Ag, Au, Pd, and Pt have the lowest shear stiffness for their mass density and therefore produces the least lateral coupling between the LF1 elements].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to build the matching layer as taught by Craig, with the material choices as taught by Angelsen so that resonance frequency may be adjusted (Angelsen) [[0012][0020][0077]].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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: (see below).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches a Z-shaped pattern [[0035]] but does not explicitly teach the acoustic matching member of claim 1, wherein the matching pattern has a structure in which unit structures including a single X-shaped pattern are arranged.
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the acoustic matching member of claim 2, wherein the impedance and the phase change of the acoustic matching member are determined by at least one design variable of the matching pattern, and the design variable includes a horizontal length and a vertical length of the unit structure, and a length, radius, and a rotation angle of the X-shaped pattern.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the acoustic matching member of claim 1, wherein the impedance matching condition is defined by the following equation. where Z1 is the impedance of the incident medium, ZT is the impedance of the target medium, ZB is the impedance of the barrier, ZL is the impedance of the acoustic matching member, kB is the wave number of the barrier, kL is the wave number … the acoustic matching member, dB is the thickness of the … thickness of the acoustic matching member.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the acoustic matching member of claim 1, wherein the phase change matching condition may be defined by the following equation … where Z1 is the impedance of the incident medium, ZT is the impedance of the target medium, ZB is the impedance of the barrier, ZL is the impedance of the acoustic matching member, kB is the wave number of the barrier, kL is the wave number of the acoustic matching member, dB is the thickness of the barrier, and dB is the thickness of the acoustic matching member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights