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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not shown that the separate groups of claims are independent and distinct, and that there is a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the next page of remarks lists the classifications that would be required to be searched in order to examine the different inventions and the search areas are different which is a burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2004/0100163 A1), Zemp (US 2018/0164418 A1), and Brisken (US 4,217,684 A).
Regarding claim 1, Baumgartner discloses an ultrasound transducer device, comprising:
an acoustically active layer comprising an array of acoustically active elements in the acoustically active layer [[abstract] in an ultrasonic transducer, the transducer elements are electrically connected to the pulsers via throughholes in an acoustic backing layer; [0009] two-dimensional array];
a first electrode layer on a first side of the acoustically active layer and a second electrode layer on a second side of the acoustically active layer [[0005] rear and front faces of the piezoelectric ceramic block are cut to form separate signal and ground electrodes respectively],
a backing layer adjacent to the second electrode layer [[0006] backing layer is coupled to the rear surface of the piezoelectric transducer elements to absorb ultrasonic waves that emerge from the back side of each element so that they will not be partially reflected and interfere with the ultrasonic waves propagating in the forward direction];
a first set of kerfs in the acoustically active layer that defines the array of acoustically active elements [[fig. 9] depicts kerfs in two dimensions];
a second set of kerfs in the first electrode layer that defines the plurality of elongate electrodes in the first electrode layer [[fig. 9] depicts kerfs in two dimensions], the second set of kerfs extending at least partly into the acoustically active layer [[0005] to fabricate a linear array of piezoelectric transducer elements, the top portion of this stack is then “diced” by sawing vertical cuts, i.e., kerfs, that divide the piezoelectric ceramic block into a multiplicity of separate side-by-side transducer elements]; and
a third set of kerfs in the second electrode layer that defines the plurality of elongate electrodes in the second electrode layer, the third set of kerfs extending at least partly into the backing layer, the acoustically active layer, or both the backing layer and the acoustically active layer [[fig. 1] shows kerfs #32 which extend into acoustic backing layer #14; [0034] layers 20 and 22 are then diced in the same planes that the piezoelectric layer was diced, thereby forming kerfs 36 that are generally coplanar with kerfs 32].
Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Zemp teaches each of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer comprising a plurality of elongate electrodes, each of the plurality of elongate electrodes of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer having an electrical connection and wherein the elongate electrodes of the first electrode layer are angled relative to the elongate electrodes of the second electrode layer first set of electrodes to permit row-column addressing within the array of acoustically active elements [[0011] the first electrode strips may be orthogonal to the second electrode strips; the first and second electrodes may comprise top and bottom electrodes or bottom and top electrodes; the ultrasound transducers may comprise capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers or bias-sensitive piezoelectrics; [0028] capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducers (CMUTs) offer many potential advantages over piezoelectric transducers, and hold promise for cost-effective 2D arrays. Fully-wired 2D arrays are cost-prohibitive due to large channel counts. We present what we call Top-Orthogonal-to-Bottom Electrode (TOBE) 2D CMUT arrays with the potential to perform 3D imaging with an N×N 2D array using only N transmit channels and N receive channel; [0031]; [0044] row and column addressing];
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 two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the row and column addressing as taught by Zemp because y quickly switching imaging orientations one may acquire fast x-z and y-z orthogonal imaging planes (Zemp) [[0044]].
Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Brisken teaches the first set of kerfs comprising a low impedance filler that has a lower acoustic impedance than the acoustically active layer [[prior art claim 8] depositing epoxy to at least fill the space between the backs of the elements and said signal board, said epoxy having an acoustic impedance that is low compared to that of the piezoelectric ceramic].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to fill the kerfs in the two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the fill epoxy having a lower acoustic impedance as compared to the piezoelectric ceramic as taught by Brisken so that transducer element shock ring down noise is reduced (Brisken) [[col. 1-2 bottom bridging]].
Regarding claim 2, Baumgartner teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, wherein the array of acoustically active elements is a two-dimensional array [[fig. 9]; [0009] two dimensional array].
Regarding claim 3, Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Zemp teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the array of acoustically active elements are arranged in a top-orthogonal-to-bottom electrode configuration [[0011]; [0028] Top-Orthogonal-to-Bottom Electrode (TOBE) 2D CMUT arrays with the potential to perform 3D imaging with an N×N 2D array using only N transmit channels and N receive channel; [0031][0044]].
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 two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the row and column addressing as taught by Zemp because y quickly switching imaging orientations one may acquire fast x-z and y-z orthogonal imaging planes (Zemp) [[0044]].
Regarding claim 8, Baumgartner teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, wherein the acoustically active layer comprising a piezoelectric material, an electrostrictive material, an electrostrictive relaxor material, micromachined membranes and gaps, or capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducers [[abstract] transducer elements; [0003] piezoelectric ceramic block].
Regarding claim 10, Baumgartner teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, comprising a stack of acoustically active layers, each acoustically active layer having a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer [[abstract] signal electrodes; [0002] transducer package is typically produced by stacking layers in sequence; [0003] ground electrodes; [0005] signal and ground electrodes; [0007] signal electrodes of the individual piezoelectric transducer elements].
Regarding claim 11, Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Zemp teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, further comprising one or more bias tees selectively connected to the electrical connection of one or more electrodes of the plurality of elongate electrodes [[0011] ultrasound transducers may comprise capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers or bias-sensitive piezoelectrics; there may be bias tees for decoupling a received AC signal from the bias for each received signal; the second electrode strips may be biased with the biasing pattern when the return pulses are measured; and the matrix may be a Hadamard matrix or an S-matrix or other invertible matrix].
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 two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the bias tees as taught by Zemp for decoupling a received AC signal from the bias for each received signal (Zemp) [[0011]].
Regarding claim 12, Baumgartner teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, further comprising a housing that is a handheld housing, a wearable housing, a convex housing, or a concave housing [[0002] probe housing].
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2004/0100163 A1), Zemp (US 2018/0164418 A1), and Brisken (US 4,217,684 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (US 2007/0182290 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Guo teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, wherein the second set of kerfs and the third set of kerfs comprise a dielectric filler that has a higher electrical impedance than the plurality of elongate electrodes [[0006] FIG. 2 shows FEA modeling results of resonant impedances of 2-2 partial composite with air kerf filler (a), 2-2 composite with silver/epoxy kerf filler (b), partial composite transducer (c), and pulse-echo of partial composite transducer (d).; [0013] FIG. 3(b) shows the electrical impedance after the kerfs of the graded ceramic were filled with the silver/epoxy filler and a .lamda./4 silver/epoxy matching layer. FIG. 3(c) shows the result of the final transducer with a second matching layer and backing. The pulse-echo spectra of the graded transducer and the regular bulk ceramic transducer are shown in FIG. 3(d) and FIG. 3(e) respectively. The center frequency is at 15 MHz. The -6 dB bandwidths of partial composite graded transducer and regular uniform transducer are 92%, and 56%, respectively.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to fill the kerfs in the two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the air fill as taught by Guo so that the frequency response is improved (Guo) [[0013]].
Regarding claim 6, Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Guo teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 5, wherein the dielectric filler is atmospheric air or an inert gas [[0006] air kerf filler; [0013]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to fill the kerfs in the two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the air fill as taught by Guo so that the frequency response is improved (Guo) [[0013]].
Regarding claim 9, Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Guo teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 5, further comprisinq a stack of acoustically active layers, each acoustically active layer havinq a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer [[0008] piezoelectric plates], and wherein the second set of kerfs and the third set of kerfs extend into the acoustically active stack of acoustically active layers [[0004] physically graded piezoelectric ceramic transducers are constructed by mechanically dicing a number of fine triangular V-grooves (kerfs) into one surface of a piezoelectric plate] only in regions where the dielectric filler is present [note: the Examiner note’s that this is inherent, the filler can only fill regions that have been diced/contain kerfs].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to fill the kerfs in the two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the air fill as taught by Guo so that the frequency response is improved (Guo) [[0013]].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2004/0100163 A1), Zemp (US 2018/0164418 A1), and Brisken (US 4,217,684 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rothberg (US 2014/0219062 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Rothberg teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer [[0060] Capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers (CMUTs) are known; [0063] for example, aluminum metal layers used for wiring and/or electrodes, or other metal layers, may be left intact by subsequent processing steps of the method], and the array of acoustically active elements are arranged in an aperiodic gridded array [[0384] FIGS. 18B and 18C illustrate alternative irregular arrangements to that of FIG. 18A, with each figure including a grid defined by uniformly spaced grid lines for purposes of illustration. The arrangement 1820 of FIG. 18B includes ultrasound elements 1802 that are spaced more closely together toward the center of the arrangement (i.e., toward element 1802j in the center of the arrangement 1820) and more widely apart toward the edges of the arrangement], such that a vector distance between any pairs of elements is unique [[0176] the irregular spacing of ultrasound sources and/or sensors may lead to fewer artifacts in images calculated from measurements obtained by the ultrasound sensors. The irregular spacing may lead to fewer artifacts that ordinarily result from symmetry in regular sensor arrangements. In at least some embodiments, the ultrasound elements may be randomly arranged].
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 two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the randomly arranged ultrasound elements as taught by Rothberg because the irregular spacing of ultrasound sources and/or sensors may lead to fewer artifacts in images calculated from measurements obtained by the ultrasound sensors (Rothberg) [[0176]].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 2004/0100163 A1), Zemp (US 2018/0164418 A1), and Brisken (US 4,217,684 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2008/0089179 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Baumgartner does not explicitly teach and yet Matsumoto teaches the ultrasound transducer device of claim 1, wherein the array of acoustically active elements are in a grid pattern [[0054] each transducer element 25 has ultrasonic transducer cells 30 arranged at equal intervals in a grid-like fashion as shown in FIG. 4.] and the electrodes in the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer connect adjacent acoustically active elements at 45-degrees relative to the grid pattern [[0057] Upper electrodes 31 of the ultrasonic transducer cells 30 are electrically connected with each other via conductors 31 a, where the upper electrodes 31 serve as return electrodes. Incidentally, in FIG. 5, the conductors 31 a extend from four peripheral locations of each disk-shaped upper electrode 31 at angles of 45 degrees with respect to the adjacent channels 43, but the present invention is not limited to this].
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 two dimensional array as taught by Baumgartner, with the angle electrodes as taught by Matsumoto so that the electrical connections can be routed between closely spaced transducer elements.
Conclusion
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