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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
The following office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 11/03/2025. Claims 1-8, and 14-18 are pending. Claims 1, 14 and 16 are amended. Claims 9-13 are cancelled. Claims 1-8, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments and 35 U.S.C. 103 sections below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5-6, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to specify that “the ultrasound transducer comprises a plurality of acoustic matching layers laminated on each of the plurality of piezoelectric elements in a thickness direction of the plurality of piezoelectric elements, the thickness direction crossing the arrangement direction, wherein at least one acoustic matching layer along the plurality of acoustic matching layers laminated on any one piezoelectric element of the plurality of piezoelectric elements is formed of a plurality of acoustic matching pieces each having a width narrower than a width of the any one piezoelectric element in the arrangement direction and at least one gap between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces, the plurality of acoustic matching pieces and the at least one gap being arranged in the arrangement direction, and the at least one gap is filled by a filler consisting of resin”.
The applicant argues that Singh and Aoki do not disclose or suggest the construction on the ultrasound transducer of claim 1.
The Applicant notes that Singh may describe that a plurality of laminated bodies including the first matching layer 304, the second matching layer 306, the third matching layer 308, and the fourth matching layer 310, are arranged on the support layer.
However, the Applicant contends that each of the first matching layer 304, the second matching layer 306, the third matching layer 308, and the fourth matching layer 310 does not include a plurality of acoustic matching pieces and gaps between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully refers the Applicant to FIGS. 3 and 7 of Singh. The examiner notes that the graded matching layer structure 300 (FIG. 3) and the diagrammatical representation 700 (FIG. 7), each include a plurality of columns (i.e. containing the first matching layer 304/710; second matching layer 306/712 ; third matching layer 308/714 and fourth matching layer 310/716) which represent a plurality of acoustic matching pieces/piezoelectric elements arranged in a thickness direction (i.e. z-direction, see FIG. 3). Furthermore, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 7, there are gaps between the columns (i.e. acoustic matching pieces) in the arrangement direction (i.e. Y direction, see FIG. 3).
Thus, the examiner respectfully asserts that Singh discloses “a plurality of acoustic matching layers (i.e. layers 304, 306, 308, 310) laminated on each of the plurality of piezoelectric elements (i.e. columns in FIGS. 3 and 7) in a thickness direction (i.e. Z-direction, see FIG. 3) of the plurality of piezoelectric elements, the thickness direction crossing the arrangement direction (i.e. Y-direction, see FIG. 3), wherein at least one acoustic matching layer among the plurality of acoustic matching layers laminated on any one piezoelectric element of the plurality of piezoelectric elements is formed of a plurality of acoustic matching pieces […] and at least one gap between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces, the plurality of acoustic matching pieces and the at least on gap being arranged in the arrangement direction” (i.e. see spaces between columns in FIGS. 3 and 7).
Furthermore, the Applicant notes that Aoki may describe the matching layer 5 having a width narrower than that of the transducer 3. However, the Applicant contends that the matching layer 5 does not include a plurality of acoustic matching pieces and gaps between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and refers the Applicant to the FIG. 2(c) of Aoki in which the width of the first acoustic matching layer 41 has a width that is less than the width of the piezoelectric vibrator 3. Furthermore, the second acoustic matching layer 51 has a width that is less than the width of the first acoustic matching layer 41. The examiner respectfully asserts that each of the columns in FIG. 2a-c represent acoustic matching pieces with gaps therebetween.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose that the at least one gap is filled by a filler consisting of resin.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Aoki discloses “Fillers such as silicone rubber, urethane rubber, or epoxy resin are provided in the divided grooves of the piezoelectric vibrator 3, the first acoustic matching layer 4, and the second acoustic matching layer 5 that are divided into a plurality of parts in order to maintain mechanical strength 7 is filled” [0027]. Therefore, the a at least one gap is filled by a filler consisting of resin.
Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains that Singh and Aoki disclose all features of the claimed invention for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below to reflect the amended limitations.
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) 1-8, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. US 2013/0195333 A1 “Singh” and further in view of Aoki JP 2006/270725 A “Aoki”.
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches “An ultrasound transducer in which a plurality of piezoelectric elements are arranged on a backing material along an arrangement direction, the ultrasound transducer comprising:” (“Referring now to FIG. 7, a diagrammatical representation 700 of a perspective view of a transducer assembly including an exemplary graded matching layer structure, such as graded matching layer structure 534 (see FIG. 5) is depicted. As depicted in FIG. 7, a substrate 702 may be selected. The substrate 702 may include one of a plastic, a metal, a ceramic, silicon, a polymer or glass” [0086]; “Subsequently, an acoustic layer 704 may be patterned on a first side of the substrate 702.[…] In one example, the acoustic layer 704 may include transducer elements 706 that are arranged in a spaced relationship, such as, but not limited to, an array of transducer elements disposed on a layer, where each of the transducer elements 706 may include a transducer front face and a transducer rear face (not shown in FIG. 7). […] the transducer elements may be fabricated employing materials, such as, but not limited to lead zirconate titanate (PZT), PMNT, composite PZT, or micromachined silicon” [0087]; “In addition, the transducer assembly 700 may include a backing structure (not shown in FIG. 7), having a front face and a rear face, which may be fabricated employing a suitable acoustic damping material possessing high acoustic losses. The backing structure may be acoustically coupled to the rear face of the array of transducer elements 706, where the backing structure facilitates the attenuation of acoustic energy that may energy from the rear face of the plurality of transducer elements 706” [0093]. Therefore, the transducer assembly 700, shown in FIG. 7, represents an ultrasound transducer in which a plurality of piezoelectric elements (i.e. transducer elements 706) are arranged on a backing material (i.e. substrate 702 or backing material (not shown in FIG. 7), see [0093]) along an arrangement direction.);
“a plurality of acoustic matching layers laminated on each of the plurality of piezoelectric elements in a thickness direction of the plurality of piezoelectric elements, the thickness direction crossing the arrangement direction” (“In the example of FIG. 7, reference numeral 710 is representative of a first matching layer, while a second matching layer is indicated by reference numeral 712. Moreover, a third matching layer and a fourth matching layer in the graded matching layer structure 708 are represented by reference numerals 714 and 716 respectively. In this example, the first matching layer 710 may be representative of a matching layer that is disposed adjacent to the patient 102 for imaging, while the fourth matching layer 716 may be representative of a matching layer that is disposed adjacent to the high impedance transducer elements 706” [0090]. The examiner notes that FIG. 3 shows a similar graded matching layer structure 300 with a coordinate system shown therewith. Therefore, the transducer assembly 700 includes a plurality of acoustic matching layers (i.e. 710, 712, 714, 716) laminated on each piezoelectric elements (i.e. columns/transducer element 706) in a thickness direction (i.e. Z-direction, see FIG. 3) of the plurality of piezoelectric elements (i.e. transducer element 706), the thickness direction crossing the arrangement direction (i.e. Y-direction, see FIG. 3).);
“wherein at least one acoustic matching layer among the plurality of acoustic matching layers laminated on any one piezoelectric element of the plurality of piezoelectric elements is formed of a plurality of acoustic matching pieces […] and at least one gap between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces, the plurality of acoustic matching pieces and the at least one gap being arranged in the arrangement direction” (See FIG. 3 of Singh which shows “a cross-sectional side view of an exemplary graded matching layer structure 300 for use in the system 100 depicted in FIG. 1 is illustrated” [0052]. In this case, this graded matching structure 300 is “configured to effectively bridge the impedance differential between the low impedance patient 102 and a high impedance transducer element. To that end, the exemplary graded matching layer structure 300 may include a plurality of matching layers” [0054]. Within FIG. 3, the plurality of matching layers are represented by reference numerals 304, 306, 308 and 310, each of which are included in the plurality of stacks (i.e. 25 separate columns). Each of these stacks represents an acoustic matching piece. Additionally, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 7, there are gaps between each of the columns along the arrangement direction (i.e. y-direction, see FIG. 3). Therefore, at least one acoustic matching layer among the plurality of acoustic matching layers laminated on any one piezoelectric element of the plurality of piezoelectric elements is formed of a plurality of acoustic matching pieces (i.e. plurality of columns) […] and at least one gap (i.e. spaces between columns) between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces, the plurality of acoustic matching pieces and the at least one gap being arranged in the arrangement direction (i.e. y-direction).).
Although, Singh discloses in FIG. 7, that the heights of the matching layers may be smaller than the height of the transducer elements 706, Singh does not teach “each having a width narrower than a width of any one the piezoelectric element in the arrangement direction” or “the at least one gap is filled by a filler consisting of resin”.
Aoki is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves an ultrasonic probe with a plurality of piezoelectric vibrators and acoustic matching layers (see [0003] and [0004]).
Aoki teaches “each having a width narrower than a width of any one piezoelectric element in the arrangement direction” (“According to the present invention, since the width in the direction in which the acoustic matching layers are arranged is narrower than the width in the direction in which the piezoelectric vibrators are arranged, it is possible to reduce the lateral vibration in the acoustic matching layer, thereby reducing the piezoelectric vibration. […] Since it is narrower than the width in the direction, the width in the direction in which the acoustic matching layers are arranged becomes narrower than the width in the transmission / reception direction of the acoustic matching layer. That is, since the aspect ratio is smaller than 1, lateral vibration can be reduced, and as a result, the directivity can be widened. This is the same when receiving ultrasonic waves. By widening the directivity characteristics of the piezoelectric vibrator, it is possible to collect biological information from a wider angle, thereby improving the diagnostic ability” [0019]; “As shown in FIG. 2A, the width of the second acoustic matching layer 5 in the scanning direction (arrangement direction) is a width d3, and the width of the piezoelectric vibrator 3 in the scanning direction is a width d1. Here, the relationship of width d3 < width d1 is established. That is, the width of the second acoustic matching layer 5 in the scanning direction is narrower than the width of the piezoelectric vibrator 3 in the scanning direction. […] Therefore, when viewed from the whole acoustic matching layer, the width in the scanning direction of the layer at the tip (second acoustic matching layer 5) is narrower than the width in the scanning direction of the piezoelectric vibrator 3” [0029]. Each of the 5 columns shown in FIG. 2A of Aoki represents an acoustic matching piece which extends along the horizontal/Y axis (i.e. arrangement/scanning direction). Therefore, since the width (i.e. d3) of the second acoustic matching layer 5 is narrower than the width of the piezoelectric vibrator 3 (i.e. piezoelectric element), each acoustic matching piece has a width narrower than a width of the piezoelectric element in the arrangement direction (i.e. scanning/horizontal/Y direction).);
“the at least one gap is filled by a filler consisting of resin” (“Fillers such as silicone rubber, urethane rubber, or epoxy resin are provided in the divided grooves of the piezoelectric vibrator 3, the first acoustic matching layer 4, and the second acoustic matching layer 5 that are divided into a plurality of parts in order to maintain mechanical strength. 7 is filled” [0027]. Therefore, the a at least one gap is filled by a filler consisting of resin.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the matching layers (i.e. at least one of 716, 714, 712, 710) of Singh such that it has a width narrower than a width of the piezoelectric element (i.e. 706) in the arrangement direction and the at least one gap is filled by a filler consisting of resin as disclosed in Aoki in order to reduce lateral vibration in the acoustic matching layer and thereby widen the directivity of the ultrasonic probe (i.e. piezoelectric vibrator) such that biological information can be collected from a wider angle to improve diagnostic ability (see Aoki: [0019]) and maintain mechanical strength of the piezoelectric elements within the ultrasound transducer (see Aoki: [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Singh in view of Aoki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Singh further teaches “wherein the at least one acoustic matching layer is an acoustic matching layer closest to the piezoelectric element among the plurality of acoustic matching layers” (See [0090] as discussed in claim 1 above. As shown in FIG. 7, the acoustic layer 716 is closest to the transducer elements 706. Therefore, the at least one acoustic matching layer is an acoustic matching layer closest to the piezoelectric element among the plurality of acoustic matching layers.).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Singh in view of Aoki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 2 above, and Singh further teaches “wherein the plurality of acoustic matching layers consist of four or more acoustic matching layers of which acoustic impedance decreases in a stepwise manner as a distance from the piezoelectric element increases” (See [0090] as discussed with respect to claim 1 above and “the graded matching layer structure 708 is formed such that that various layers in the graded matching layer structure 708 provide a controlled continuous change in acoustic impedance as a function of structure. For example, the graded matching layer structure 706 is formed such that the matching layers 710, 712, 714, 716 provide a continuous gradual change in acoustic impedance across the graded matching layer structure 708, thereby bridging the differential in acoustic impedance that may exist between the low impedance patient 102 and the high impedance transducer elements 706” [0091]; “In accordance with another aspect of the present technique, a graded matching layer structure is presented. The graded matching layer structure includes a plurality of matching layers arranged in a stacked structure, wherein each matching layer in the stacked structure has a different acoustic impedance, and wherein the stacked structure is configured to provide a stepwise monotonic change in acoustic impedance across the stacked structure” [0013]. Therefore, since the matching layers 710, 712, 714 and 716 provide a gradual change in acoustic impedance (i.e. stepwise monotonic change, see [0013]) across the graded matching layer structure 708 to bridge the differential in acoustic impedance that may exist between the patient (i.e. low impedance) and the transducer elements 706 (i.e. high impedance), the acoustic impedance decreases in a stepwise manner as a distance from the piezoelectric element increases. Therefore, the plurality of acoustic matching layers consist of four or more acoustic matching layers of which acoustic impedance decreases in a stepwise manner as a distance from the piezoelectric element increases.).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 7, Singh in view of Aoki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claims 1, 2 and 3 above, and Aoki further teaches “wherein a resonance frequency of each of the plurality of acoustic matching pieces in a width direction is higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in a frequency band in which at least a half value of an amplitude value of a resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element in a thickness direction is taken” (See [0019], [0029] and FIG. 2A (i.e. each of the 5 columns representing an acoustic matching piece) as discussed in claim 1 above. In this case, the width of the acoustic matching layers are narrower than the width of the piezoelectric vibrators in order to reduce lateral vibration in the acoustic matching layer such that the directivity can be widened making is possible to collect biological information from a wider angle, thereby improving the diagnostic ability of the device.
According to the Applicant’s specification, “Because the acoustic matching piece 4a in the present embodiment has the width L1 narrower than the width of the piezoelectric element 3 in the Y direction, a resonance frequency due to the width L1 of the acoustic matching piece 4A is higher than a resonance frequency in a case of assuming that the acoustic matching piece 4A has the same width as the width of the piezoelectric element 3 in the y direction. For this reason, the resonance frequency due to the width L1 of the acoustic matching piece 4A is made higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in the frequency band A1 of the piezoelectric element 3 at the sensitivity for use in generating a high-definition ultrasound image, such as -20Db, by adjusting the width L1 of the acoustic matching piece 4A, whereby a frequency band A3 that does not overlap the frequency band A1 can be obtained” [0036]. Therefore, when the width of the acoustic matching piece is narrower than the width of the piezoelectric element, the resonance frequency becomes higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in a frequency band in which at least a half value of an amplitude of a resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element in a thickness direction is taken.
Therefore, since the width of the acoustic matching layers of Aoki are narrower than the width of the piezoelectric vibrators 3 (see Aoki: FIG. 2a), this configuration results in a resonance frequency of the acoustic matching piece in a width direction being higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in a frequency band in which at least a half value of an amplitude value of a resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element in a thickness direction is taken.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the matching layers (i.e. at least one of 716, 714, 712, 710) of Singh such that it has a width narrower than a width of the piezoelectric element (i.e. 706) in the arrangement direction as disclosed in Aoki in order to reduce lateral vibration in the acoustic matching layer and thereby widen the directivity of the ultrasonic probe (i.e. piezoelectric vibrator) such that biological information can be collected from a wider angle to improve diagnostic ability (see Aoki: [0019]).
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Aoki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 5 above, and Aoki further teaches “wherein the resonance frequency of each of the plurality of acoustic matching pieces in the width direction is higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in a frequency band in which a value of 1/10 of the amplitude value of the resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element in the thickness direction is taken” (See [0019], [0029] and FIG. 2A (i.e. each of the 5 columns representing an acoustic matching piece) as discussed in claim 1 above and “The directivity characteristic of the piezoelectric vibrator 3 and the acoustic matching by the acoustic matching layer are in a trade-off relationship. That is, in order to widen the directivity of the piezoelectric vibrator 3, the aspect ratio (width d3/thickness t) of the second acoustic matching layer may be made smaller than 1, but the second acoustic matching layer 5, the sensitivity is lowered by reducing the width w3 in the scanning direction. Therefore, it is necessary to design the ultrasonic probe so that a good image for diagnosis can be obtained in consideration of directivity and acoustic matching. For example, if the aspect ratio of the second acoustic matching layer 5 is slightly smaller than 1, it is better in diagnosis than an ultrasonic probe having an aspect ratio of approximately 1 due to the effect of widening the directivity. An image can be obtained. Specifically, even if the width d3 is reduced until the aspect ratio (width w3/thickness t is about 2/3, a good image can be obtained for diagnosis due to the effect of wide directivity. That is, even if the acoustic matching is deteriorated, the directivity is improved more than the transmission sensitivity is lowered, so that the image used for diagnosis is good” [0032]. In this case, the width of the acoustic matching layers are narrower than the width of the piezoelectric vibrators in order to reduce lateral vibration in the acoustic matching layer such that the directivity can be widened making is possible to collect biological information from a wider angle, thereby improving the diagnostic ability of the device. Additionally, altering the aspect ratio (width d3/thickness t) of the acoustic matching layer such that it is smaller than 1 (i.e. 1/10, for example), enables the ultrasonic probe to obtain a good quality image with which a diagnosis can be made.
According to the Applicant’s specification, “Although a case where the resonance frequency of the acoustic matching piece 4A in the width direction, that is, the resonance frequency due to the width L1 is higher than the frequency on the high frequency side of the frequency band A1 of the piezoelectric element 3 at the sensitivity of -20 dB, for example, to obtain a high-definition ultrasound image has been described, in a case where the resonance frequency of the acoustic matching piece 4A in the width direction is higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in a frequency band in which at least a half value of an amplitude value of a resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element 3 in a thickness direction is taken, it is possible to obtain a high-definition ultrasound image without causing degradation of image quality. From a viewpoint of obtaining a high-definition ultrasound image without causing degradation of image quality, it is more preferable that the resonance frequency due to the width L1 of the acoustic matching piece 4A is higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in a frequency band in which a value of 1/10 of amplitude value of the resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element 3 in the thickness direction is taken” [0057].
Therefore, since the width of the acoustic matching layers of Aoki are narrower than the width of the piezoelectric vibrators 3 (see Aoki: FIG. 2a), and the directivity of the piezoelectric vibrator can be widened by altering the aspect ratio (i.e. width d3/thickness t) to be less than 1 (i.e. 1/10 for example) to obtain good quality images, this configuration results in the resonance frequency of the acoustic matching piece in the width direction is higher than a frequency on a high frequency side in a frequency band in which a value of 1/10 of the amplitude value of the resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element in the thickness direction is taken.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the matching layers (i.e. at least one of 716, 714, 712, 710) of Singh such that it has a width narrower than a width of the piezoelectric element (i.e. 706) in the arrangement direction as disclosed in Aoki in order to reduce lateral vibration in the acoustic matching layer and thereby widen the directivity of the ultrasonic probe (i.e. piezoelectric vibrator) such that biological information can be collected from a wider angle to improve diagnostic ability (see Aoki: [0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Singh in view of Aoki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Singh further teaches “wherein the plurality of the acoustic matching pieces are arranged in the arrangement direction and a direction perpendicular to the arrangement direction” (See FIG. 7. As shown in FIG. 7, each of the transducer elements 706 includes a matching layer 716, 714, 712 and 710 in the arrangement direction (i.e. stacked) and the transducer elements 706 extend along the length and width (i.e. sides) of the substrate 702 (i.e. perpendicular to the arrangement direction). Therefore, the at least one acoustic matching layer consists of a plurality of the acoustic matching pieces (i.e. on each transducer element 706) arranged in the arrangement direction (i.e. stacked) and a direction perpendicular to the arrangement direction (i.e. corresponding to the transducer elements 706 extending along the length/width of the substrate 702).).
Regarding claim 15, Singh in view of Aoki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 14 above, and Singh further teaches “wherein each of the plurality of acoustic matching pieces has any shape of a polygonal column, a circular column, a polygonal cone, or a circular cone extending in a lamination direction of the plurality of acoustic matching layers” (See FIGS. 3 and 7. As shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 7, each of the matching layers (i.e. 304, 306, 308, 310, 716, 714, 712 and 710, respectively) is a square column (i.e. polygonal) which is stacked on top of the support layer 302 (i.e. FIG. 3) or the transducer element 706 (i.e. FIG. 7). Therefore, each of the plurality of acoustic matching pieces has any shape of a polygonal column, a circular column, a polygonal cone, or a circular cone extending in a lamination direction (i.e. stacked) of the plurality of acoustic matching layers.).
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 18, Singh in view of Aoki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claims 1, 15 and 16 above, and Singh further teaches “wherein a filler consisting of resin is disposed between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces” (“Furthermore, some techniques call for deposition of matching layers by electroplating and then cutting grooves via photoetching, where the grooves are backfilled with epoxy. Other solutions such as a two matching layer solution have been pursued in which a first layer is made of a porous material with a filler and a second layer composed of only the filler material, while certain other techniques use deposition of material directly on to transducers using thick film deposition, followed by photolithographic techniques” [0010]. Therefore, since the deposition of matching layers may be performed by electroplating, cutting grooves via photoetching and backfilling groves with epoxy (i.e. a resin) or using a filler material between a first layer (i.e. composed of porous material with a filler) and a second layer (i.e. composed of only filler material), a filler consisting of resin (i.e. epoxy) is disposed between the plurality of the acoustic matching pieces (i.e. between the layers 716, 714,712, 710 on each transducer element 706).).
The examiner further notes that Aoki further teaches a filler consisting of resin is disposed between the plurality of acoustic matching pieces (See [0027] as discussed in claim 1 above).
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 KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.- Fri. 7:30-4:30 (Alternate Fridays Off).
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached on (571) 270-0552. 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.
/KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797