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
Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 June 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I in the reply filed on 1 June 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3, 6-8, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2017/0065253).
With respect to claim 1, Li et al. discloses a modified dematching layer for a transducer (Fig 3), the modified dematching layer comprising: a matrix having a first acoustic impedance; and inclusions embedded in the matrix, the inclusions having a second acoustic impedance lower than the first acoustic impedance and configured to attenuate acoustic energy at an acoustic band gap of the modified dematching layer (Paragraphs 20-21, wherein the first and second acoustic impedances are inherent material properties of the materials that are part of the dematching layer).
With respect to claim 2, Li et al. discloses the modified dematching layer of claim 1, wherein the modified dematching layer is formed of a metamaterial (Paragraphs 20-21), and wherein the acoustic band gap of the metamaterial corresponds to a resonance frequency of a piezoelectric material (wherein this is merely an intended goal of the device that does not further limit the structural features of the claims dematching layer).
With respect to claim 3, Li et al. discloses the modified dematching layer of claim 1, wherein the modified dematching layer is included in an acoustic stack without a backing positioned between the modified dematching layer and a piezoelectric material (Fig 3).
With respect to claim 6, Li et al. discloses the modified dematching layer of claim 1, wherein the inclusions are one or more of embedded particles, cavities, and fluid bubbles (Paragraphs 20-21).
With respect to claim 7, Li et al. discloses the modified dematching layer of claim 1, wherein the inclusions are distributed within the matrix to destructively interfere with resonance frequencies of a piezoelectric material based on one or more of Fabry-Perot, Minnaert, and Helmholtz resonances at the inclusions (wherein this is merely an intended goal of the device that does not further limit the structural features of the claims dematching layer).
With respect to claim 8, Li et al. discloses the modified dematching layer of claim 1, wherein the inclusions are concentrated at one or more regions of the matrix (Paragraphs 20-21).
With respect to claim 15, Li et al. discloses an acoustic stack (Fig 3), comprising: a piezoelectric material (item 230); an electrical circuit in contact with the piezoelectric material (Paragraph 16); and a modified dematching layer (item 234) positioned adjacent to the piezoelectric material with the electrical circuit positioned therebetween (Paragraph 16), the modified dematching layer formed of a metamaterial having a matrix with a first, higher acoustic impedance and inclusions with a second, lower acoustic impedance, and wherein the inclusions are distributed within the matrix to attenuate acoustic energy at a resonance frequency of the piezoelectric material (Paragraphs 20-21)
With respect to claim 16, Li et al. discloses the acoustic stack of claim 15, wherein the metamaterial has an acoustic impedance that is at least two times an acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric material. (Paragraphs 18, 20, and 21, wherein the acoustic impedances are inherent material s properties).
With respect to claim 18, Li et al. discloses the acoustic stack of claim 15, wherein the inclusions are one or more of coated and uncoated particles (Paragraphs 20-21).
With respect to claim 20, Li et al. discloses the acoustic stack of claim 15, wherein the inclusions resonate at frequencies that destructively interfere with stray acoustic energy travelling through the metamaterial (wherein this is merely an intended goal of the device that does not further limit the structural features of the claims dematching layer).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Weekamp et al. (US 2010/0156243).
With respect to claim 4, Li et al. discloses the modified dematching layer of claim 1.
Li et al. does not disclose that the modified dematching layer is included in an acoustic stack with the modified dematching layer in face-sharing contact with one or more ASICs arranged between the modified dematching layer and a piezoelectric material.
Weekamp et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer in which the modified dematching layer (item 96) is included in an acoustic stack with the modified dematching layer in face-sharing contact with one or more ASICs (item 12) arranged between the modified dematching layer and a piezoelectric material (Paragraph 40 and figure 7)
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the arrangement of the dematching and ASIC layers taught by Weekamp et al. with eh ultrasound transducer of Li et al. for the benefit of allowing for improved thermal separation between the acoustic and electrical parts of the device (Paragraph 6 of Weekamp et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 17, and 19 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 the modified dematching layer is included in a first acoustic stack with a first backing, and wherein the first backing has a reduced thickness relative to a second backing that is included in a second acoustic stack having a dematching layer without the inclusions” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 5.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the inclusions are distributed periodically through the matrix, and wherein the modified dematching layer is a phononic crystal” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 9.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the inclusions are cavities shaped as one or more of pillars, discs, and a honey-comb pattern” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 17.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the inclusions are bubbles of a fluid” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 19.
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
Prosecution Insights