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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks pages 1-3, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 103(a) due to the new interpretation of the prior art documents of Tai, Morita, and Gu as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tai et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0183000 A1 (hereafter Tai), prior art of record.
As to claim 1: Tai discloses a transducer (fig. 9 and see ¶ 43) for generating ultrasonic waves to detect an object (see ¶ 43), wherein the transducer comprises:
a piezoelectric layer (902; see fig. 9 and ¶ 43) having a first surface (920; see fig. 9) and a second surface (unlabeled but see the surface of 902 facing 906 in fig. 9), wherein the first surface is farther from the object than the second surface (any objects under testing will be located past 905 such as noted in ¶ 43) and comprises a curved structure protruded along a first direction away from the object (920; see fig. 9).
As to claim 2: Tai discloses the transducer according to claim 1, further comprising a first matching layer (906; see ¶ 43) arranged on the second surface (see fig. 9).
As to claim 3: Tai discloses the transducer according to claim 1, further comprising a lens element (904; see ¶ 43), wherein the lens element (904) is arranged on a peripheral (see fig. 9) of the piezoelectric layer (902) and has a curved surface protruded along a second direction towards the object (see fig. 9 regarding the curvature of lens 904 in the direction of/towards object’s just beyond lens surface 905 as disclosed in ¶ 43).
As to claim 6: Tai discloses the transducer according to claim 1, further comprising an adhesive layer (not labeled but see ¶ 43 regarding the disclosed “epoxy or another adhesive”), wherein the adhesive layer is arranged on the first surface (layer 902 has a surface abutting layer 910 considered to be a first surface) and covers the curved structure (see ¶ 43; when viewed down the central axis of the lens 904 towards the backside 922 [see ¶ 45], the adhesive layer covers the curved structure defined by 920 as depicted in fig. 9).
As to claim 7: Tai discloses the transducer according to claim 1, wherein the first surface (920; see fig. 9) further has a flat structure formed outside the curved structure (see fig. 9; the abutting surface of the piezoelectric layer 902 against the dematching layer 910 further has a flat structure defined by the backside 922 disclosed in ¶ 45).
As to claim 8: Tai discloses the transducer according to claim 1, wherein the first surface (920; see fig. 9) further has a flat structure formed outside the curved structure (see fig. 9; the abutting surface of the piezoelectric layer 902 against the dematching layer 910 further has a flat structure defined by the backside 922 disclosed in ¶ 45).
As to claim 9: Tai discloses the transducer according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric layer (902) is formed through the arrangement of a plurality of piezoelectric elements (see ¶ 43) and at least a part of the piezoelectric elements have different thicknesses to form the curved structure (see ¶ 47).
As to claim 10: Tai discloses the transducer according to claim 1, wherein a curvature of the curved structure is configured to be corresponding to a focal position of the transducer (see ¶ 44 and 47).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al. US PG-PUB 2015/018300 A1 (hereafter Tai), prior art of record in view of Morita US PG-PUB 2021/0113187 A1 (hereafter Morita), prior art of record.
As to claim 4: Tai teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 3, including a lens element (904; see ¶ 43), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the lens element is formed of a silicone material or a glass material.
However, Morita teaches that a lens element (160; fig. 1) may be formed of a silicone material (see ¶ 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tai’s lens element to be formed of a silicone material because such a silicone composition provides the useful and predictable benefits of being a material that may contact a human body when using the ultrasonic transducer to make measurements therein and also has low acoustic attenuation and thus dissipates only a small amount of ultrasonic energy as ultrasonic signals propagate therethrough, such as suggested in ¶ 31 of Morita.
As to claim 5: Tai teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a piezoelectric layer (902; see fig. 9 and ¶ 43) and a first surface (920; see fig. 9), but does not explicitly teach the transducer further comprising:
a flexible circuit board, wherein the flexible circuit board and the piezoelectric layer are connected via the first surface.
However, Morita teaches a flexible circuit board (not labeled, but see ¶ 226), wherein the flexible circuit board and a piezoelectric layer are connected via a surface (see ¶ 226 which notes that the circuit board, piezoelectric material, and backing material are all bonded to one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tai’s device to include a flexible circuit board, wherein the flexible circuit board and the piezoelectric layer are connected via the first surface because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of an ultrasonic probe device with high heat dissipation and with high sensitivity, such as suggested in Morita ¶ 234.
Claims 11-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0216428 A1 (hereafter Gu), prior art of record, in view of Tai et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0183000 A1 (hereafter Tai), prior art of record.
As to claim 11: Gu teaches an ultrasonic probe (20; see figs. 1 and 2 as well as details in ¶ 57) for detecting an object (see ¶ 70), wherein the ultrasonic probe comprises:
a handle component (22; see fig. 2 and ¶ 70); and
a transducer (23; see fig. 4 and ¶ 69) arranged at one end of the handle component (see fig. 4 and ¶ 79).
Gu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the transducer comprises:
a piezoelectric layer having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface is farther from the object than the second surface.
However, Tai teaches a transducer (fig. 9 and see ¶ 43) for generating ultrasonic waves to detect an object (see 43), wherein the transducer comprises:
a piezoelectric layer (902; see fig. 9 and ¶ 43) having a first surface (920; see fig. 9) and a second surface (unlabeled but see the surface of 902 facing 906 in fig. 9), wherein the first surface is farther from the object than the second surface (any objects under testing will be located past 905 such as noted in ¶ 43) and comprises a curved structure protruded along a first direction away from the object (920; see fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Gu’s transducer with one that comprises a piezoelectric layer having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface is farther from the object than the second surface and comprises a curved structure protruded along a first direction away from the object because such a transducer is conducive to improved bandwidth functionality due to the curved shape utilized in the transducer such as suggested in Tai ¶ 47. Furthermore, such a construction also provides the useful and beneficial result of focusing ultrasound beams with low attenuation, such as also suggested in Tai ¶ 47, and therefore would serve to improve the signal to noise ratio of Gu’s transducer device.
As to claim 12: Gu as modified by Tai teaches the transducer according to claim 1, further comprising a first matching layer (906 of Tai; see ¶ 43) arranged on the second surface (see fig. 9 of Tai).
As to claim 13: Gu as modified by Tai teaches the transducer according to claim 1, further comprising a lens element (904 of Tai; see ¶ 43), wherein the lens element (904 of Tai) is arranged on a peripheral (see fig. 9 of Tai) of the piezoelectric layer (902 of Tai) and has a curved surface protruded along a second direction towards the object (see fig. 9 of Tai regarding the curvature of lens 904 in the direction of/towards object’s just beyond lens surface 905 as disclosed in ¶ 43).
As to claim 16: Gu as modified by Tai teaches the transducer according to claim 11, further comprising an adhesive layer (not labeled but see ¶ 43 regarding the disclosed “epoxy or another adhesive”), wherein the adhesive layer is arranged on the first surface (layer 902 has a surface abutting layer 910 considered to be a first surface) and covers the curved structure (see ¶ 43; when viewed down the central axis of the lens 904 towards the backside 922 [see ¶ 45], the adhesive layer covers the curved structure defined by 920 as depicted in fig. 9).
As to claim 17: Gu as modified by Tai teaches the transducer according to claim 11, wherein the first surface (920; see fig. 9) further has a flat structure formed outside the curved structure (see fig. 9; the abutting surface of the piezoelectric layer 902 against the dematching layer 910 further has a flat structure defined by the backside 922 disclosed in ¶ 45).
As to claim 18: Gu as modified by Tai teaches the transducer according to claim 11, wherein the first surface (920 of Tai; see fig. 9) further has a flat structure formed outside the curved structure (see fig. 9 of Tai; the abutting surface of the piezoelectric layer 902 against the dematching layer 910 further has a flat structure defined by the backside 922 disclosed in ¶ 45).
As to claim 19: Gu as modified by Tai teaches the transducer according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric layer (902 of Tai) is formed through the arrangement of a plurality of piezoelectric elements (see ¶ 43 of Tai) and at least a part of the piezoelectric elements have different thicknesses to form the curved structure (see ¶ 47 of Tai).
As to claim 20: Gu as modified by Tai teaches the transducer according to claim 1, wherein a curvature of the curved structure is configured to be corresponding to a focal position of the transducer (see ¶ 44 and 47 of Tai).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0216428 A1 (hereafter Gu), prior art of record, in view of Tai et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0183000 A1 (hereafter Tai), prior art of record, and further in view of Morita US PG-PUB 2021/0113187 A1 (hereafter Morita), prior art of record.
As to claim 14: Gu as modified by Tai teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 13, including a lens element (904 of Tai), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the lens element is formed of a silicone material or a glass material.
However, Morita teaches that a lens element (160; see fig. 1) may be formed of a silicone material (see ¶ 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to replace Tai’s lens element with one formed of a silicone material because such a silicone composition provides the useful and predictable benefits of being a material that may contact a human body when using the ultrasonic transducer to make measurements therein and also has low acoustic attenuation and thus dissipates only a small amount of ultrasonic energy as ultrasonic signals propagate therethrough.
As to claim 15: Gu as modified by Tai teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including a piezoelectric layer (902 of Tai) and a first surface (920 of Tai) but does not explicitly teach the transducer further comprising:
a flexible circuit board, wherein the flexible circuit board and the piezoelectric layer are connected via the first surface.
However, Morris teaches a flexible circuit board (not labeled but see ¶ 226) , wherein the flexible circuit board and a piezoelectric layer are connected via a surface (see ¶ 226 which notes that the circuit board, piezoelectric material, and backing material are all bonded to one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu’s device to include a flexible circuit board, wherein the flexible circuit board and the piezoelectric layer are connected via the first surface because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of an ultrasonic probe device with high heat dissipation and with high sensitivity, such as suggested in Morris ¶ 234.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855