NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
No argument was presented with RCE. Due to the new art in recent IDS, previous Office Action (Allowance) is withdrawn, and new rejection is presented below.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 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 1-2, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Krautkramer et al. (1350441, cited by Applicants, hereinafter “Krautkramer”).
Regarding Claim 1, Krautkramer teaches a system (fig.3, 5-6) for detecting a change in a substrate (10, a plate) (“Title” and pg.1; lines 10-15) comprising: a transducer (11, 15 or 19) that is frequency matched to the substrate (10) comprising a piezoelectric material (pg.3; 58-60 discloses that using piezoelectric transducer is a known alternative to excite the sound in the plate) formed with defined properties so that a frequency bandwidth of the transducer includes a resonance frequency of the substrate (pg.1; lines 10-15 discloses “The subject of the invention is an ultrasonic measurement method to determine the thickness of objects such as plates and similar materials, from resonant vibrations induced in the object and fed back to it via transducer means.”, pg.2; lines 14-22), the transducer being formed separate from the substrate (the separation of transducer and the plate/substrate is shown in fig.6) and configured to: emit a sound wave toward the substrate (pg.1; lines 16-22); and provide an electrical signal characterizing a reflected sound wave by the substrate (an echo pulse arrangement is discussed in (pg.3; lines 14-24) and shown in fig.3 and 6); and an acoustic wave analysis system (“Indicator instruments”) to detect a change in a physical characteristic of the substrate based on the reflected sound wave (pg.3; lines 14-24 discloses echo pulse arrangement, pg.1; lines 18-30 discloses “The plate thickness can be derived from the frequency of this thickness resonance. The wall thickness of a material can be determined by means of the known resonant ultrasonic method. … The instant the sound frequency corresponds to the thickness frequency of the plate, the latter is excited to perform natural vibrations (thickness resonance).”).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of claim 1 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer further teaches wherein the physical characteristic is a thickness of the substrate (“Title:”).
Regarding Claim 15, Krautkramer teaches a method (pg.1; lines 10-30, pg.3; lines 14-24), comprising: forming a piezoelectric material (pg.3; 58-60 discloses that forming/using piezoelectric transducer is a known alternative to excite the sound in the plate) having defined properties so that a frequency bandwidth of the piezoelectric material includes a resonance frequency of a substrate to be monitored for a change in a physical characteristic (pg.1; lines 10-15 discloses “The subject of the invention is an ultrasonic measurement method to determine the thickness of objects such as plates and similar materials, from resonant vibrations induced in the object and fed back to it via transducer means.”, pg.2; lines 14-22); and constructing a transducer (11, 15 or 19) with the formed piezoelectric material (pg.3; 58-60) for emitting a sound wave toward the substrate (pg.1; lines 16-22) and receiving a reflected sound wave back from the substrate for monitoring the substrate (pg.3; lines 14-24 discloses echo pulse arrangement, pg.1; lines 18-30 discloses “The plate thickness can be derived from the frequency of this thickness resonance. The wall thickness of a material can be determined by means of the known resonant ultrasonic method. … The instant the sound frequency corresponds to the thickness frequency of the plate, the latter is excited to perform natural vibrations (thickness resonance).”), wherein the substrate is formed separately from the transducer (the separation of transducer and the plate/substrate is shown in fig.6).
Regarding Claim 16, the method of claim 15 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer further teaches wherein said forming comprising providing the piezoelectric material with a given thickness (implicit in the piezoelectric material, (pg.3; 58-60)).
Regarding Claim 18, the method of claim 15 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer further teaches wherein the defined properties include one of a thickness, an elasticity, a porosity, a composition, a density, and/or a shape of the piezoelectric material (pg.1; lines 10-30, pg.3; lines 14-24) disclose regarding measurement of thickness).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krautkramer in view of Kreier et al. (US 6,250,159 Bl, “Kreier”).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of claim 1 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic wave analysis system is to detect a layer on the substrate.
However, Kreier teaches a system and method wherein the acoustic wave analysis system is to detect a layer on the substrate ([Abstract], (col.4; line 47 – col.5; line 12) disclose a system and method to gauge the thickness (d7) of a layer (7) borne by a substrate (4), where an ultrasonic wave (8.1) is transmitted by a measuring device (1)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krautkramer’s system with the teaching of Kreier since both arts disclose similar structures and techniques to measure thickness and the modified structure would precisely measure any layer formed on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 4, the system of claim 3 is taught by Krautkramer in view of Kreier.
Kreier further teaches wherein detection of the layer on the substrate corresponds to detecting the change in the physical characteristic of the substrate (col.4; line 47 – col.5; line 12, col.6; lines 9-31).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krautkramer in view of Agarwal et al. (US 2018/0306609 A1, “Agarwal”).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of claim 1 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic wave analysis system is implemented on one or more computing platforms.
However, Agarwal teaches a sensing system wherein the acoustic wave analysis system is implemented on one or more computing platforms ([Abstract]; [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krautkramer’s system with the teaching of Agarwal since using a server, server system, or cloud-based computing architecture is known in the art to provide the back end computational analysis for the sensing system [0084].
Regarding Claim 10, the system of claim 9 is taught by Krautkramer in view of Agarwal.
Agarwal further teaches wherein the one or more computing platforms are part of a cloud computing environment ([Abstract]; [0084]).
Claims 12-14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krautkramer in view of Griffin et al. (US 11,387,802 B1, “Griffin”).
Regarding Claim 12, Krautkramer teaches an ultrasonic transducer (fig.3, 5-6) for detecting a change in a substrate (10, a plate) (Title, pg.1; lines 10-30, pg.3; lines 14-24), comprising: wherein the transducer (11, 15 or 19) is frequency matched to the substrate (10) formed with defined properties so that a frequency bandwidth of the ultrasonic transducer includes a resonance frequency of the substrate (pg.1; lines 10-15 discloses “The subject of the invention is an ultrasonic measurement method to determine the thickness of objects such as plates and similar materials, from resonant vibrations induced in the object and fed back to it via transducer means.”, pg.2; lines 14-22), wherein the substrate is formed separately from the ultrasonic transducer (the separation of transducer and the plate/substrate is shown in fig.6). Further, Krautkramer teaches that using piezoelectric transducer is a known alternative to excite the sound in the plate (pg.3; 58-60).
Krautkramer does not teach that the ultrasonic transducer comprising a first electrode; a second electrode; and a piezoelectric material between the first electrode and the second electrode.
However, Griffin teaches a microresonator 100 comprising an actuator electrode 110, a sensor electrode 130, and an intervening piezoelectric film 120 (fig.1, col.1; lines 31-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krautkramer’s transducer with the teaching of Griffin since a transducer comprising a piezoelectric layer and two electrodes is well-known in the art where the electrodes function as actuator and sensor respectively.
Regarding Claim 13, the transducer of claim 12 is taught by Krautkramer in view of Griffin.
Griffin further teaches that the transducer further comprising a backing material (fig.11; 24, col.8; lines 20-23).
Regarding Claim 14, the transducer of claim 12 is taught by Krautkramer in view of Griffin.
Griffin further teaches that the transducer further comprising an acoustic matching layer (fig.11; 30, col.8lines 39-30).
Regarding Claim 19, the method of claim 15 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer does not teach wherein said constructing the transducer comprises incorporating first and second electrodes, such that the piezoelectric material is between the first electrode and the second electrode.
However, Griffin teaches a microresonator 100 comprising an actuator electrode 110, a sensor electrode 130, and an intervening piezoelectric film 120 (fig.1, col.1; lines 31-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krautkramer’s method with the teaching of Griffin since a transducer comprising a piezoelectric layer and two electrodes is well-known in the art where the electrodes function as actuator and sensor respectively.
Regarding Claim 20, the method of claim 15 is taught by Krautkramer in view of Griffin.
Griffin further teaches that the transducer wherein said constructing the transducer comprises incorporating at least one of a backing material (fig.11; 24, col.8; lines 20-23) and an acoustic matching layer (fig.11; 30, col.8lines 39-30).
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krautkramer in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0409871 A1, “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 17, the method of claim 16 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer does not explicitly teach wherein said providing comprises one of three-dimensional (3D) printing, molding, or thermal pressing the piezoelectric material according to thickness criteria specifying the given thickness for the piezoelectric material.
However, Lee teaches a sensor comprising a piezoelectric material layer includes a substrate, a support layer, a metal layer, a piezoelectric material layer on the metal layer and an electrode on the piezoelectric material layer [Abstract], wherein said providing comprises one of three-dimensional (3D) printing, molding, or thermal pressing the piezoelectric material according to thickness criteria specifying the given thickness for the piezoelectric material ([0136] discloses molding process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krautkramer’s method with the teaching of Lee since the claimed processes are well-known in the art.
Regarding Claim 21, the system of claim 1 is taught by Krautkramer.
Krautkramer does not explicitly teach wherein the piezoelectric material is a composite, non-ceramic piezoelectric material having a given thickness selected during fabrication by one of three-dimensional (3D) printing, molding, or thermal pressing.
However, Lee teaches a sensor comprising a piezoelectric material layer includes a substrate, a support layer, a metal layer, a piezoelectric material layer on the metal layer and an electrode on the piezoelectric material layer [Abstract], wherein said providing comprises one of three-dimensional (3D) printing, molding, or thermal pressing the piezoelectric material according to thickness criteria specifying the given thickness for the piezoelectric material ([0136] discloses molding process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krautkramer’s method with the teaching of Lee since the claimed processes are well-known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and Claims 6-8 that are depended on claim 5, are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitation of claim 5 is the reasons for allowability as the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest the limitation.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
