Non-Final Rejection
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 08/12/2025 and 08/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-27 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 06/20/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102022206138.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) of claim 27. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the Non-Compliant Amendment mailed out on 08/20/2025.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 26 with respect to the newly amended limitations have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 19, applicant states “Miyazawa does not disclose any relative bandwidth figure, much less one of at least 20%. In fact, because the device of Miyazawa lacks a high pass, no bandpass is formed by the transmission and reception units; consequently no distinctive relative bandwidth can be derived”. Examiner notes, applicants arguments with respect to claim 19 should rather be directed to claim 18, since claim 18 indicates or refers to the bandwidth of the transmission unit and reception unit is at least 20%. For compact purposes examiner is interpreting applicants arguments to claim 19 as to claim 18 and therefore the argument is rendered moot in view of newly added prior art reference as detailed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 and 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to arguments of claims 15-17, 21 and 22.
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 17, applicant states “Miyazawa nowhere discloses a system that transmits ultrasonic waves into, or receives ultrasonic waves from, a gaseous propagation path”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Miyazawa teaches ultrasonic waves are emitted into the living body (See Paragraph 54 of Miyazawa) and a living body inherently contains gas thus Miyazawa teaches outputting ultrasonic signals (ultrasonic waves are emitted) into a gaseous medium (living body).
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 21, applicant states “Miyazawa does not teach selection of a Q-Factor of <= 3,5 for either the transmission or the reception unit.”. Examiner relies upon a 103 rejection of Miyazawa in view of Wang and specifically examiner relies on the teachings of Wang to teach the limitation as stated above (See Paragraph 41 of the Non-final rejection mailed out on 06/09/2025) and therefore examiner is unable to respond to this argument. 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).
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 22, applicant states “None of the cited art shows a housing that encloses both transmitter and receiver or offers separate volumes for each unit. Miyazawa aims for an ultra-thin medical probe, enclosing the transducer in a housing would contradict this design goal, such that the reference teaches away.” Examiner notes applicant does not positively claim a housing at all in claim 22 as written. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a housing that encloses both transmitter and receiver or offers separate volumes for each unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants arguments to claims 15 and 16, applicant states “Zhou (CN 107532938A) does disclose a horn for a microphone, but only for a single-element receiver and without any complementary high-pass / low-pass functionality. Combining Miyazawa's liquid probing device with Zhou's horn would defeat the space constraints central to Miyazawa and would still not result in a bandpass, formed by a high-pass transmitter and a low-pass receiver.”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhou teaches a transmission unit 706 that comprises EM antenna 710 (horn antenna structure) and Zhou also teaches a reception unit 725 that comprises an EM receiver antenna 730 (horn antenna structure) (See Page.12, lines 42-47 and Fig.7A of Zhou). Furthermore, examiner is confused to what applicant is referring to as “space constraints central to Miyazawa”, examiner cannot find any teachings in Miyazawa that discusses a space constraint that is central to the invention of Miyazawa.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-13, 17, 19-20, 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa (US 20180059067 A1) in view of Kajitani (US 20110303014 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazawa teaches an ultrasonic transducer system, comprising: a transmission unit comprising a first natural frequency and configured to generate an ultrasonic signal. (Abstract, Paragraphs 22-24)
Miyazawa also teaches a reception unit comprising a second natural frequency and configured to receive a response signal based on the ultrasonic signal. (Paragraphs 22-24)
Miyazawa also teaches wherein the second natural frequency is larger than the first natural frequency. (Paragraph 157)
Miyazawa also teaches wherein the transmission unit and the reception unit form a bandpass that is at least partially characterized by the first natural frequency and the second natural frequency. (Paragraphs 127-129, 133, Fig.2)
Miyazawa also teaches wherein the reception unit contributes to the bandpass as a low-pass filter. (Paragraph 129, Fig.2)
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach the transmission unit contributes to the bandpass as a high-pass filter.
Kajitani teaches the transmission unit contributes to the bandpass as a high-pass filter. (Paragraph 80, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate the transmission unit contributes to the bandpass as a high-pass filter in order to pass frequency component that is equal to the driving frequency or more and suppress sound frequency lower than it.
Regarding claim 4, Miyazawa teaches wherein the second natural frequency is larger than the first natural frequency at least by a factor. (Paragraph 158) Miyazawa discloses the claimed invention except for the second natural frequency is larger than the first natural frequency at least by the factor 1.1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate the second natural frequency is larger than the first natural frequency at least by the factor 1.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Miyazawa teaches a driver unit coupled to the transmission unit and configured to apply to a transmission ultrasonic transducer of the transmission unit an electrical voltage that is proportional to a received excitation signal. (Paragraphs 126-128, 11, 93-94, Figs.2-3)
Regarding claim 8, Miyazawa teaches an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the response signal on the basis of a pulse compression method. (Paragraphs 139, 141, Fig.2)
Regarding claim 9, Miyazawa teaches an operation of the transmission unit at a single transmission oscillation mode and/or configured for an operation of the reception unit at a single reception oscillation mode. (Paragraphs 21, 70-72, Figs.5, 7)
Regarding claim 10, Miyazawa teaches wherein the transmission unit comprises a plurality of sound transducers comprising matching natural frequencies within a tolerance range: and/or wherein the reception unit comprises a plurality of sound transducers comprising matching natural frequencies within a tolerance range. (Paragraphs 63-64, 115, 117, Fig.7)
Regarding claim 11, Miyazawa teaches wherein the transmission unit is configured to emit the ultrasonic signal with a characteristic to acquire an amplitude of the reception signal at the location of the reception unit, comprising a local maximum within a tolerance range. (Paragraphs 22, 97, 152)
Regarding claim 12, Miyazawa teaches wherein the characteristic is based on at least one of the following: a radiation property of the transmission unit; a characteristic of a fluidic opening of a substrate of the transmission unit; and an antenna structure for shaping the transmission signal. (Paragraphs 23-25, 91-92, Figs.9, 7)
Regarding claim 13, Miyazawa teaches an amplifier unit coupled to a reception ultrasonic transducer of the reception unit and configured to acquire a transducer signal received by the reception ultrasonic transducer and to amplify the same so as to acquire an amplified signal that is approximately directionally proportional to a charge at the reception ultrasonic transducer; an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the response signal on the basis of the amplified signal and a quantity based on the electrical charge of a reception ultrasonic transducer. (Paragraphs 129, 141, Fig.2)
Regarding claim 17, Miyazawa teaches wherein the transmission unit is configured to output the ultrasonic signal into a gaseous medium; and/or wherein the reception unit is configured to receive the reception signal from a gaseous medium. (Paragraphs 54, 155, 121)
Regarding claim 19, Miyazawa teaches wherein an ultrasonic transducer of the transmission unit and an ultrasonic transducer of the reception unit are arranged on a substrate and are connected to a mutual medium via openings in the substrate. (Paragraphs 143, 171, 88, Claim 1, Figs.7, 8, 17, 18)
Regarding claim 20, Miyazawa teaches wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board. (Paragraphs 83, 126-127, Figs.2-3, 7-8)
Regarding claim 23, Miyazawa teaches wherein a transmission ultrasonic transducer of the transmission unit is arranged on a first substrate; and a reception ultrasonic transducer of the reception unit is arranged on a different second substrate. (Figs.7-8)
Regarding claim 25, Miyazawa teaches Time-of-flight sensor with an ultrasonic transducer system according to claim 1. (Paragraphs 123-124, 56, 57, 59)
Regarding claim 26, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 26, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa in view of Kajitani and Aragaki (JP 2015047345 A, all citations provided from machine tarnation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazawa does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission unit and/or the reception unit comprises a sound transducer comprising at least one of: a capacitive micromachined sound transducer, cMUT; a piezoelectric micromachined sound transducer, pMUT; a polyvinylidene fluoride film.
Aragaki teaches wherein the transmission unit and/or the reception unit comprises a sound transducer comprising at least one of: a capacitive micromachined sound transducer, cMUT; a piezoelectric micromachined sound transducer, pMUT; a polyvinylidene fluoride film. (Page.4, lines 20-22)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate wherein the transmission unit and/or the reception unit comprises a sound transducer comprising at least one of: a capacitive micromachined sound transducer, cMUT; a piezoelectric micromachined sound transducer, pMUT; a polyvinylidene fluoride film in order to incorporate a wide bandwidth.
Regarding claim 7, Miyazawa teaches wherein the transmission ultrasonic transducer of the transmission unit is a transmission ultrasonic transducer and the driver unit is configured to apply an electrical bias voltage to the transmission ultrasonic transducer and to apply the electrical voltage with respect to the electrical bias voltage. (Paragraphs 126-128, 11, 93-94, Figs.2-3)
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach a capacitive transmission ultrasonic transducer.
Aragaki teaches a capacitive transmission ultrasonic transducer. (Page.4, lines 20-22)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate a capacitive transmission ultrasonic transducer in order to incorporate a wide bandwidth.
Regarding claim 14, Miyazawa teaches wherein the reception ultrasonic transducer is a reception ultrasonic transducer and the amplifier unit is configured to apply an electrical bias voltage to the reception ultrasonic transducer. (Paragraph 129, Fig.2)
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach a capacitive reception ultrasonic transducer.
Aragaki teaches a capacitive reception ultrasonic transducer. (Page.4, lines 20-22)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate a capacitive reception ultrasonic transducer in order to incorporate a wide bandwidth.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa in view of Kajitani and Aida (JP H0747078 A, all citations provided from machine tarnation attached)
Regarding claim 18, Miyazawa does not explicitly teach wherein a relative bandwidth of the transmission unit and reception unit is at least 20%.
Aida teaches wherein a relative bandwidth of the transmission unit and reception unit is at least 20%. (Page.8, lines 38-40)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate wherein a relative bandwidth of the transmission unit and reception unit is at least 20% in order to not disturb the signal therefore reading the image not as noise.
Claim(s) 15-16, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa in view of Kajitani and Zhou (CN 107532938 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 15, Miyazawa does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission unit comprises a horn antenna structure configured to influence a radiation direction of the ultrasonic signal.
Zhou teaches wherein the transmission unit comprises a horn antenna structure configured to influence a radiation direction of the ultrasonic signal. (Page.12, lines 42-47, Fig.7A)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate wherein the transmission unit comprises a horn antenna structure configured to influence a radiation direction of the ultrasonic signal in order to determine position using the transmitter and receiver devices.
Regarding claim 16, Miyazawa does not explicitly teach wherein the reception unit comprises a horn antenna structure configured to influence a directional characteristic of the reception unit for receiving the response signal.
Zhou teaches wherein the reception unit comprises a horn antenna structure configured to influence a directional characteristic of the reception unit for receiving the response signal. (Page.12, lines 42-47, Fig.7A)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate wherein the reception unit comprises a horn antenna structure configured to influence a directional characteristic of the reception unit for receiving the response signal in order to determine the frequency response of the microphone.
Regarding claim 22, Miyazawa teaches wherein a transmission ultrasonic transducer of the transmission unit is arranged in a volume, wherein the volume prevents an acoustic damage for the transmission ultrasonic transducer; and/or wherein a reception ultrasonic transducer of the reception unit is arranged in a volume, wherein the volume prevents an acoustic damage for the reception ultrasonic transducer. (Figs.7-8)
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach a configuration that prevents an acoustic short circuit.
Zhou teaches a configuration that prevents an acoustic short circuit. (Page.6, lines 17-19)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate a configuration that prevents an acoustic short circuit in order to avoid damage to the device.
Regarding claim 24, Miyazawa teaches wherein the transmission ultrasonic transducer is arranged in a first volume to prevent an acoustic damage, and the reception ultrasonic transducer is arranged in a different second volume to prevent an acoustic damage. (Figs.7-8)
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach a configuration that prevents an acoustic short circuit.
Zhou teaches a configuration that prevents an acoustic short circuit. (Page.6, lines 17-19)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate a configuration that prevents an acoustic short circuit in order to avoid damage to the device.
Claim(s) 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa in view of Kajitani and Wang (CN 110068384 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 21, Miyazawa does not explicitly teach wherein a structure of the transmission unit comprises a Q factor of up to 3.5 and/or wherein a structure of the reception unit comprises a Q factor of up to 3.5.
Wang teaches wherein a structure of the transmission unit comprises a Q factor and/or wherein a structure of the reception unit comprises a Q factor. (Page.2, lines 40-43, Page.3, last paragraph, Page.5, Claim 1) Miyazawa in view of Wang discloses the claimed invention except for a Q factor of up to 3.5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate a Q factor of up to 3.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate wherein a structure of the transmission unit comprises a Q factor of up to 3.5 and/or wherein a structure of the reception unit comprises a Q factor of up to 3.5 in order to set the quality factor according to the type and category of the transducer.
Regarding claim 27, Miyazawa does not explicitly teach selecting a Q factor of the ultrasonic transducer system on the basis of the first natural frequency and the second natural frequency and either acquiring a desired partial bandwidth of the system is acquired by selecting a low Q factor, and, or by selecting a high Q factor is acquired for acquiring a sensitivity.
Wang teaches selecting a Q factor of the ultrasonic transducer system on the basis of the first natural frequency and the second natural frequency and either acquiring a desired partial bandwidth of the system is acquired by selecting a low Q factor, and, or by selecting a high Q factor is acquired for acquiring a sensitivity. (Page.2, lines 40-43, Page.3, last paragraph, Page.5, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Miyazawa to incorporate selecting a Q factor of the ultrasonic transducer system on the basis of the first natural frequency and the second natural frequency and either acquiring a desired partial bandwidth of the system is acquired by selecting a low Q factor, and, or by selecting a high Q factor is acquired for acquiring a sensitivity in order to set the quality factor according to the type and category of the transducer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645