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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that the language “A system comprising the ultrasonic transducer of 11” is intended to refer to claim 11, and it appears that there may be missing language between the preamble and “and a control component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “transducer of claims 1” is intended to be “transducer of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The term “high alumina content” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high alumina content” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claim 23, this claim is dependent on claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 24 contains the trademark/trade name “SECAR® 71”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The language “comprising 20-30% by weight of cement of the total weight of the material” is unclear as it is unclear to what “the material” is intended to refer.
Claim 28 contains the trademark/trade names “Master Genium 7500” and “Plastol 5700”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
Claims 14, 21, 22, 24-26, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. These claims are dependent on claim 1, which was cancelled. For purposes of examination, these claims will be treated as though they were intended on being dependent on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11, 13, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coleman (US 4240004).
With respect to claim 11, Coleman et al. discloses an ultrasonic transducer (Fig 6) comprising: a piezoelectric element (item 30); a pair of electrodes deposited one on each side or on the same side of the piezoelectric element to enable current flow through the piezoelectric element (column 2, lines 61-65); and a backing layer material (item 50’) comprising at least one of stainless steel powder, cement, and water (column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 11), said backing layer material disposed on one side of the piezoelectric element to attenuate vibrations in the ultrasonic transducer from the piezoelectric element (Fig 6), wherein the backing element material renders the ultrasonic transducer stable at temperatures of up to about 600°C (column 1, lines 53-55).
With respect to claim 13, Coleman discloses a system comprising the ultrasonic transducer of claim 11, and a control component, wherein the control component is coupled to the ultrasonic transducer by a pair of wires (items 40 and 41) coupled to each electrodes and the backing element material renders the ultrasonic transducer stable at temperatures of up to about 600°C (column 1, lines 53-55).
With respect to claim 31, Coleman discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 11. The language “wherein the backing layer material is prepared by further curing the mixture in humid conditions, heating the mixture to remove any moisture by raising firstly gradually the temperature below the boiling point and subsequently raising said temperature, and cooling the mixture to obtain the backing layer material” is product by process language. It has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USOQ 964).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 14, 16-19, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Kazys et al. (“High Temperature Ultrasonic Transducers: A Review”).
With respect to claim 14, Coleman discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 11.
Coleman does not disclose that the backing layer material is prepared by mixing powdered steel, cement, and water.
Kazys et al. teaches an ultrasonic transducer in which the backing layer material is prepared by mixing powdered steel, cement, and water (page 23, section 5).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the backing material of Kazys et al. with the ultrasonic transducer of Coleman for the benefit of providing a backing material suitable for high temperature environments (page 23, section 5 of Kazys et al.).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Coleman and Kazys et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 14. The language “wherein the powdered steel, cement and water are mixed in a proportion of 1:2:1 respectively” is product by process language. It has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USOQ 964).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Coleman and Kazys et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 14. The language “wherein the mixture is cured in 3 days or more” is product by process language. It has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USOQ 964).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Coleman and Kazys et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 14. The language “wherein the mixture is heated gradually to 93°C and maintained for 6 hours” is product by process language. It has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USOQ 964).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Coleman and Kazys et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 14. The language “wherein the temperature is raised to about 540 °C at the rate of 2.5 °C / min to remove water” is product by process language. It has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USOQ 964).
With respect to claim 29, Coleman discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 11.
Coleman does not disclose that the backing layer material includes stainless steel or that the stainless steel powder has a high coefficient of thermal expansion.
Kazys et al. teaches an ultrasonic transducer in which the backing layer material includes stainless steel (page 23, section 5).
With respect to the claimed high coefficient of thermal expansion, this is merely a statement of an inherent material property. As the prior art discloses the claimed structural features, including the claimed materials, the material properties are presumed to be inherent.
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the backing material of Kazys et al. with the ultrasonic transducer of Coleman for the benefit of providing a backing material suitable for high temperature environments (page 23, section 5 of Kazys et al.).
With respect to claim 30, the combination of Coleman and Kazys et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 29. The language “wherein the stainless steel powder has a coefficient thermal expansion of between 9 to 17 pm/m/°C” is merely a statement of an inherent material property. As the prior art discloses the claimed structural features, including the claimed materials, the material properties are presumed to be inherent.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Toda et al. (US 2011/0050039).
With respect to claim 21, Coleman discloses the ultrasonic transducer of claim 11.
Coleman does not disclose a bonding material present between the backing layer material and the piezoelectric element to bond the backing layer material to the piezoelectric element.
Toda et al. teaches an ultrasonic transducer including a bonding material present between the backing layer material and the piezoelectric element to bond the backing layer material to the piezoelectric element (Paragraph 63).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bonding material of Toda et al. with the ultrasonic transducer of Coleman for the benefit of strengthening the connection between the backing material and the piezoelectric element (Paragraph 63 of Toda et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the stainless steel powder has an average bead size between 2 and 100 µm” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hill et al. (GB 2573305) discloses an ultrasonic transducer in which the backing material includes a refractory cement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights