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 01/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments to claims 1 and 8, applicant states “the hydroxymethyl cellulose in He does not increase an attenuation provided by the backing material”, examiner respectfully disagrees. He teaches hydroxymethyl cellulose is used as a backing material (See claim 6 of He) and it is known that hydroxymethyl cellulose increases attenuation. (See “CHARACTERIZATION OF ACOUSTIC, CAVITATION, AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF POLY(VINYL ALCOHOL) HYDROGELS FOR USE AS THERAPEUTIC ULTRASOUND TISSUE MIMICS” as a teaching reference to teach/show hydroxymethyl cellulose increases attenuation)
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the ultrasonic wave" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildes (US 20060261707 A1) in view of He (CN 117126471 A all citation provided from machine transition attached).
Regarding claim 1, Wildes teaches a transducer assembly (52), comprising: a transducer (68) emitting or receiving an ultrasonic wave (transducer elements to emit ultrasound waves). (Paragraphs 24, 35, Figs.2-3)
Wildes also teaches a backing (56) adjacent to the transducer (68), the backing is an absorbing element (backing comprising an absorber) that provides acoustic damping for the transducer (backing layer 56, having a front face and a rear face, that may be fabricated employing a suitable acoustic damping material), the backing is formed of a base material (a composite structure of a backing material) (74) with an additive (76) dispersed within the base material. (Paragraphs 7, 36-39 Claims 53, 64, 78, Figs.2-4)
Wildes does not explicitly teach a bio-based additive dispersed within the base material, the bio-based additive increases an attenuation of the ultrasonic wave provided by the absorbing element.
He teaches a bio-based additive (hydroxymethyl cellulose) dispersed within the base material, the bio-based additive increases an attenuation (hydroxymethyl cellulose increases ultrasound attenuation) of the ultrasonic wave provided by the absorbing element. (Claim 6) He teaches hydroxymethyl cellulose is used as a backing material and it is known that hydroxymethyl cellulose increases attenuation. (See “CHARACTERIZATION OF ACOUSTIC, CAVITATION, AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF POLY(VINYL ALCOHOL) HYDROGELS FOR USE AS THERAPEUTIC ULTRASOUND TISSUE MIMICS” as a teaching reference to teach hydroxymethyl cellulose increases attenuation)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate a bio-based additive dispersed within the base material, the bio-based additive increases an attenuation of the ultrasonic wave provided by the absorbing element in order to have good uniformity, high attenuation and strong sound absorption ability.
Regarding claim 2, Wildes teaches wherein the backing (56) abuts the transducer (68). (Figs.2-3)
Regarding claim 3, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the bio-based additive is cellulose.
He teaches wherein the bio-based additive is cellulose. (Claim 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the bio-based additive is cellulose in order to have good uniformity, high attenuation and strong sound absorption ability.
Regarding claim 4, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the bio-based additive is at least 10% of the backing by volume.
He teaches wherein the bio-based additive is a percentage of the backing by volume. (Claims 6, 5, 2-3, 7-8) Wildes in view of He discloses the claimed invention except for bio-based additive is at least 10% of the backing by volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate bio-based additive is at least 10% of the backing by volume, 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 Wildes to incorporate wherein the bio-based additive is at least 10% of the backing by volume in order to have good uniformity, high attenuation and strong sound absorption ability.
Regarding claim 5, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the bio-based additive is less than or equal to 30% of the backing by volume.
He teaches wherein the bio-based additive is less than or equal to a percentage of the backing by volume. (Claims 6, 5, 2-3, 7-8) Wildes in view of He discloses the claimed invention except for the bio-based additive is less than or equal to 30% of the backing by volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate the bio-based additive is less than or equal to 30% of the backing by volume, 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 Wildes to incorporate wherein the bio-based additive is less than or equal to 30% of the backing by volume in order to have good uniformity, high attenuation and strong sound absorption ability.
Regarding claim 6, Wildes teaches a securing element (70, 58), the transducer (68) is positioned between the backing (56) and the securing element. (Paragraphs 35-36, Figs.2-3)
Regarding claim 8, Wildes teaches an ultrasonic sensor (10), comprising: a housing (54); and a transducer assembly (52) positioned in the housing. (Paragraphs 24, 31, 33, 35, Figs.1-3)
Wildes also teaches the transducer assembly (52) includes a transducer (68) and a backing (56) adjacent to the transducer, the backing and/or a portion of the housing is an absorbing element (backing comprising an absorber) that provides acoustic damping for the transducer, the absorbing element is formed of a base material (74) with an additive (76) dispersed within the base material. (Paragraphs 7, 36-39 Claims 53, 64, 78, Figs.2-4) Although Wildes does not explicitly teach/show a housing, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a housing is present in the invention since all the components must be housed in something in order to function.
Wildes does not explicitly teach a bio-based additive dispersed within the base material, the bio-based additive increases an attenuation of the ultrasonic wave provided by the absorbing element.
He teaches a bio-based additive (hydroxymethyl cellulose) dispersed within the base material, the bio-based additive increases an attenuation (hydroxymethyl cellulose increases ultrasound attenuation) of the ultrasonic wave provided by the absorbing element. (Claim 6) He teaches hydroxymethyl cellulose is used as a backing material and it is known that hydroxymethyl cellulose increases attenuation. (See “CHARACTERIZATION OF ACOUSTIC, CAVITATION, AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF POLY(VINYL ALCOHOL) HYDROGELS FOR USE AS THERAPEUTIC ULTRASOUND TISSUE MIMICS” as a teaching reference to teach hydroxymethyl cellulose increases attenuation)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate a bio-based additive dispersed within the base material, the bio-based additive increases an attenuation of the ultrasonic wave provided by the absorbing element in order to have good uniformity, high attenuation and strong sound absorption ability.
Regarding claim 9, Wildes teaches wherein the transducer assembly includes a securing element positioned between the transducer and the housing, the securing element secures the transducer to the housing. (Paragraphs 35-36, Figs.2-3)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildes in view of He and Chwalek (US 20210283656 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric crystal.
Chwalek teaches wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric crystal. (Paragraph 6, 8, Claim 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric crystal in order to both generate and detect ultrasound waves.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildes in view of He and Savage (US 20060273695 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has a body, a first protrusion extending from the body, a second protrusion extending from the body, and a channel positioned between the first protrusion and the second protrusion.
Savage teaches wherein the housing has a body, a first protrusion (14a) extending from the body, a second protrusion (14a) extending from the body, and a channel (16) positioned between the first protrusion and the second protrusion. (Paragraphs 9, 23, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the housing has a body, a first protrusion extending from the body, a second protrusion extending from the body, and a channel positioned between the first protrusion and the second protrusion in order to absorb heat and dampen vibration.
Regarding claim 11, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the transducer assembly is one of a pair of transducer assemblies, one of the transducer assemblies is positioned in a first receiving portion of the first protrusion and the other of the transducer assemblies is positioned in a second receiving portion of the second protrusion.
Savage teaches wherein the transducer assembly is one of a pair of transducer assemblies, one of the transducer assemblies is positioned in a first receiving portion of the first protrusion and the other of the transducer assemblies is positioned in a second receiving portion of the second protrusion. (Paragraphs 20, 25, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the transducer assembly is one of a pair of transducer assemblies, one of the transducer assemblies is positioned in a first receiving portion of the first protrusion and the other of the transducer assemblies is positioned in a second receiving portion of the second protrusion in order to absorb heat and dampen vibration.
Regarding claim 12, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has a first section and a second section formed monolithically with the first section, the first section is the only portion of the housing formed as the absorbing element.
Savage teaches wherein the housing has a first section and a second section formed monolithically with the first section, the first section is the only portion of the housing formed as the absorbing element. (Paragraphs 9, 23, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the housing has a first section and a second section formed monolithically with the first section, the first section is the only portion of the housing formed as the absorbing element in order to absorb heat and dampen vibration.
Regarding claim 13, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the first section extends along the first protrusion and the second protrusion.
Savage teaches wherein the first section extends along the first protrusion and the second protrusion. (Paragraphs 9, 23, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the first section extends along the first protrusion and the second protrusion in order to absorb heat and dampen vibration.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildes in view of He and Jin (US 20140145561 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wildes teaches a process for manufacturing an ultrasonic sensor (10), comprising: printing an absorbing element (casting an absorber material around the plurality of thermal conductive elements to form the composite structure of backing material) by additive (76) manufacturing. (Paragraphs 8-10, Claims 53, 64, 78, Figs.2-4)
Wildes also teaches positioning the absorbing element (56) adjacent to a transducer (68) that emits an ultrasonic wave, the absorbing element provides acoustic damping for the transducer. (Paragraphs 7, 32, 36-39 Claims 53, 64, 78, Figs.2-4)
Wildes does not explicitly teach the absorbing element is formed in a single piece from a base material and an attenuation increasing additive dispersed within the base material.
Jin teaches the absorbing element is formed in a single piece from a base material. (Paragraphs 46, 50, Fig.2)
He teaches an attenuation increasing additive dispersed within the base material. (Claim 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate the absorbing element is formed in a single piece from a base material as taught Jin in order to prevent the noise from transferring to the piezoelectric element and further modify Wildes to incorporate an attenuation increasing additive dispersed within the base material as taught by He in order to have good uniformity, high attenuation and strong sound absorption ability.
Regarding claim 15, Wildes teaches wherein the attenuation increasing additive is a bio-based additive. (Paragraphs 36-39 Claims 53, 64, 78, Figs.2-4)
Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the attenuation increasing additive is a bio-based additive.
He teaches wherein the attenuation increasing additive is a bio-based additive. (Claim 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the attenuation increasing additive is a bio-based additive in order to have good uniformity, high attenuation and strong sound absorption ability.
Regarding claim 17, Wildes teaches wherein the absorbing element (backing comprising an absorber) is a portion of a housing, the positioning step includes inserting the transducer (68) into the housing. (Paragraphs 7, 9-10, Claims 53, 64, 78, Figs.2-4) Although Wildes does not explicitly teach/show a housing, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a housing is present in the invention since all the components must be housed in something in order to function.
Regarding claim 18, Wildes teaches wherein the absorbing element is a backing (56) that is inserted into a housing adjacent to the transducer (68). (Paragraphs 9-10, Claims 53, 64, 78, Figs.2-6)
Regarding claim 19, Wildes teaches wherein the backing (56) is interference fit between the transducer (68) and the housing. (Figs.2-6)
Regarding claim 20, Wildes teaches wherein the backing (56) is printed with an outer shape corresponding to a space between the transducer (68) and the housing. (Figs.2-6)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildes in view of He, Jin and Kawaji (US 20220389192 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wildes does not explicitly teach wherein the base material is a photopolymer resin that is curable by light irradiation.
Kawaji teaches wherein the base material is a photopolymer resin that is curable by light irradiation. (Abstract, Paragraphs 82, 89)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Wildes to incorporate wherein the base material is a photopolymer resin that is curable by light irradiation in order to enhance the short-circuiting resistance, cutting processability, and production efficiency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645