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 .
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.
Claims 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the substrate" which has not been previously defined. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as they depend from claim 15.
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 1-4, 9, 11-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Oster et al. (US 2018/0003677 A1, “Oster”).
Regarding Claim 1, Oster teaches a system (fig.1) for detecting a change in a substrate (element 148) comprising: a transducer (element 130/140) that is frequency matched to the substrate and to provide an electrical signal characterizing a reflected sound wave (fig.8-9, [0057]: “In response to the surface acoustic waves 870 which cause deformation of the piezoelectric material 834, the output transducer generates output signals.”) by the substrate (element 148 or 848); and an acoustic wave analysis system (a chemical species-sensitive resonant device 150, and analysis process is implicit in processor 1504; fig.10 and [0091]) to detect a change in a physical characteristic of the substrate ([0024]: “By measuring the amplitude of this output signal at different input frequencies, or alternatively by using a feedback loop (e.g., phase locked loop), a mechanical resonant frequency of the device 150 at which the output electrical signal amplitude is maximized can be determined. When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency. This shift in frequency is detected in the electrical signals and is used to correlate the amount of a specific chemical species present in the environment.”).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of claim 1 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein the physical characteristic is a thickness of the substrate ([0024] discloses, “When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency.” The attached desired chemical species are measured in term of mass. The attached desired chemical species/mass on the material 148 implicitly changes the thickness of the material 148 at places. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Oster.).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of claim 1 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein the acoustic wave analysis system is to detect a layer on the substrate ([0024] discloses, “When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency.” The attached desired chemical species are measured in term of mass. The attached desired chemical species on the material 148 implicitly changes the thickness of the material 148. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Oster.).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of claim 3 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein detection of the layer on the substrate corresponds to detecting the change in the physical characteristic of the substrate ([0024] discloses, “When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency.” The attached desired chemical species on the material 148 changes the thickness of the material 148. The attached desired chemical species are measured in term of mass. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Oster as increment of mass could be interpreted as change in the physical characteristic.).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of claim 1 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein the acoustic wave analysis system is implemented on one or more computing platforms ([0057]: “In response to the surface acoustic waves 870 which cause deformation of the piezoelectric material 834, the output transducer generates output signals (e.g., output signal 920 of FIG. 9).”, Claim 19, Fig.9-10 disclose one or more computing platforms which analyzes the acoustic wave received by the output transducer.).
Regarding Claim 11, the system of claim 1 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein the transducer includes a piezoelectric material (element 134, [0022], fig.1) that is frequency matched to the substrate ([0024]: “[a]n input transducer 130 is excited by applying a time varying (e.g., AC) voltage to the piezoelectric material 134 which causes it to deform….. By measuring the amplitude of this output signal at different input frequencies, or alternatively by using a feedback loop (e.g., phase locked loop), a mechanical resonant frequency of the device 150 at which the output electrical signal amplitude is maximized can be determined. When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency. This shift in frequency is detected in the electrical signals and is used to correlate the amount of a specific chemical species present in the environment.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Oster teaches an ultrasonic transducer (fig.1; element 130 or 140) for detecting a change in a substrate [0024] comprising: a first electrode ([0022]: “a region 135 of the conductive base structure 136 can act as a first electrode of the piezoelectric vibrating input device.”); a second electrode ([0022]: “The conductive structure 132 can act as a second electrode”); and a piezoelectric material (element 134, [0022], fig.1) between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the transducer is frequency matched to the substrate ([0024]: “[a]n input transducer 130 is excited by applying a time varying (e.g., AC) voltage to the piezoelectric material 134 which causes it to deform….. By measuring the amplitude of this output signal at different input frequencies, or alternatively by using a feedback loop (e.g., phase locked loop), a mechanical resonant frequency of the device 150 at which the output electrical signal amplitude is maximized can be determined. When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency. This shift in frequency is detected in the electrical signals and is used to correlate the amount of a specific chemical species present in the environment.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Oster teaches a method (fig.1; [0022]-[0024]) comprising: forming a piezoelectric material (element 134) having defined properties so that a frequency bandwidth of the piezoelectric material includes a resonance frequency of the substrate (element 148) ([0024]: “[a]n input transducer 130 is excited by applying a time varying (e.g., AC) voltage to the piezoelectric material 134 which causes it to deform….. By measuring the amplitude of this output signal at different input frequencies, or alternatively by using a feedback loop (e.g., phase locked loop), a mechanical resonant frequency of the device 150 at which the output electrical signal amplitude is maximized can be determined. When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency. This shift in frequency is detected in the electrical signals and is used to correlate the amount of a specific chemical species present in the environment.”); and constructing a transducer with the formed piezoelectric material for monitoring the substrate (fig.1, [0022] - [0024]).
Regarding Claim 16, the method of claim 15 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein said forming comprising providing the piezoelectric material with a given thickness (implicit in element 134 of fig.1).
Regarding Claim 17, the method of claim 16 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches 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 ([0020]: “pulsed annealing”).
Regarding Claim 18, the method of claim 15 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein the defined properties include one of a thickness [0020], an elasticity, a porosity, a composition, a density, and/or a shape of the piezoelectric material ([0020]: “Piezoelectric material deposition (e.g., 0.5 to 1 um deposition thickness) and crystallization also occur in the package substrate during the package fabrication process.”).
Regarding Claim 19, the method of claim 15 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches wherein said constructing the transducer comprises incorporating first and second electrodes ([0022]: “a region 135 of the conductive base structure 136 can act as a first electrode of the piezoelectric vibrating input device…. The conductive structure 132 can act as a second electrode”), such that the piezoelectric material (element 134, [0022], fig.1) is between the first electrode and the second electrode (shown in fig.1).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster in view of Butters et al. (US 2011/0195111 A1, “Butters”).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of claim 1 is taught by Oster.
Oster further teaches “When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency.” [0024]. Thus, Oster implicitly utilizes frequency spectrum to detect the change in the physical characteristic of the substrate.
Oster does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic wave analysis system comprises: a frequency domain transformer to convert the electrical signal from a time domain to a frequency domain to provide a frequency spectrum representation of the electrical signal; and a substrate change detector to detect the change in the physical characteristic of the substrate based on the frequency spectrum.
However, Butters teaches wherein the acoustic wave analysis system comprises: a frequency domain transformer to convert the electrical signal from a time domain to a frequency domain to provide a frequency spectrum representation of the electrical signal; and a substrate change detector to detect the change in the physical characteristic of the substrate based on the frequency spectrum [0160].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oster’s system with the teaching of Butters since conversion of the electrical signal from a time domain to a frequency domain to provide a frequency spectrum is well known technique in the art, and utilizing frequency spectrum one of ordinary skill in the art may detect the change in the physical characteristic of the substrate, as taught in [0024] of Oster.
Regarding Claim 6, the system of claim 5 is taught by Oster in view of Butters.
Oster further teaches wherein the change in the physical characteristic of the substrate correspond to one of a decrease in thickness of the substrate, a change in density of the substrate, and an increase in thickness of the substrate, the increase in the thickness of the substrate corresponding to a formation of a layer on the substrate ([0024] discloses, “When the desired chemical species attach to the material 148, which is disposed on the base structure 136, the mass of the base structure changes, which in tum changes the mechanical resonant frequency.” The attached desired chemical species are measured in term of mass. The attached desired chemical species/mass on the material 148 implicitly changes the thickness of the material 148 at places. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Oster.).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster in view of PAN et al. (US 2023/0152320 A1, “Pan”).
Regarding Claim 7, the system of claim 1 is taught by Oster.
Oster does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate change detector outputs an alert in response to detecting the change in the physical characteristic.
However, Pan teaches an apparatus for airborne pathogen detection, which includes a crystal microbalance, wherein the substrate change detector outputs an alert in response to detecting the change in the physical characteristic ([0045]: “the system 200 also determines whether to issue an alert notification based on whether the viral load exceeds a high load threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oster’s system with the teaching of Pan since generating alert is known technique in the art which would enable a user or a system to take further action.
Regarding Claim 8, the system of claim 7 is taught by Oster in view of Pan.
Modified Oster further teaches wherein the alert is provided to another system or device in response to detected change in thickness (Pan: [0045] in combination with Oster: [0024]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster in view of Panchalan et al. (US 2021/0262963 A1, “Panchalan”).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of claim 9 is taught by Oster in view of Panchalan.
Oster does not teach wherein the one or more computing platforms are part of a cloud computing environment.
However, Panchalan teaches a system for chemical sensing wherein the one or more computing platforms are part of a cloud computing environment [0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oster’s system with the teaching of Panchalan since a cloud of computing platforms operating together as the computing devices is well known in the art.
Claims 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster in view of Saitoh et al. (5,115,809, “Saitoh”).
Regarding Claim 13, the transducer of claim 12 is taught by Oster.
Oster does not teach that the transducer further comprising a backing material.
However, Saitoh teaches an ultrasonic probe comprising a backing material (fig.4; element 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oster’s transducer with the teaching of Saitohy since usage of a backing material in an ultrasonic transducer is well known in the art which may serve a substrate for attenuating ultrasonic waves.
Regarding Claim 14, the transducer of claim 12 is taught by Oster.
Oster does not teach that the transducer further comprising an acoustic matching layer.
However, Saitoh teaches an ultrasonic probe comprising an acoustic matching layer (fig.4; element 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oster’s transducer with the teaching of Saitohy since usage of an acoustic matching layer in an ultrasonic transducer is well known in the art which would reduce reflection of ultrasonic waves.
Regarding Claim 20, the method of claim 15 is taught by Oster.
Oster does not teach the method wherein said constructing the transducer comprises incorporating at least one of a backing material and an acoustic matching layer.
However, Saitoh teaches an ultrasonic probe comprising a backing material (fig.4; element 6) and an acoustic matching layer (fig.4; element 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oster’s transducer with the teaching of Saitohy since usage of a backing material in an ultrasonic transducer is well known in the art which may serve a substrate for attenuating ultrasonic waves, and usage of an acoustic matching layer in an ultrasonic transducer is well known in the art which would reduce reflection of ultrasonic waves.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mutharasan et al. (US 7,942,056 B2) teaches a piezoelectric cantilever sensor includes a piezoelectric layer and a non-piezoelectric layer, a portion of which is attached to the piezoelectric layer. In one embodiment, one end of the non-piezoelectric layer extends beyond the end of piezoelectric layer to provide an overhang. The overhang piezoelectric cantilever sensor enables increased sensitivity allowing application of the device in more viscous environments, such as liquid media, as well as application in liquid media at higher flow rates than conventional piezoelectric cantilevers. In this embodiment, the sensor is robust and exhibits excellent sensing characteristics in both gaseous and liquid media, even when subjected to relatively high flow rates [Abstract].
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