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 § 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, 3-11, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by PROCOPIO et al. (US 2019/0259932 Al, “Procopio”).
Regarding Claim 1, Procopio teaches a system (Fig.1, 4, 7A and 10), comprising: a package (fig.2; element 1) including: a support base (2); a coating region (fig.1; region comprising 14, 16, 18, 20) on the support base (fig.1); at least a first system die (fig.4 & 7A; element 35, [0038]) coupled to the support base and in the coating region (Fig.4 & 7A; [0038]); and a monitoring system (fig.10; element 100) in the coating region (shown in combination of fig.4, 7A and 10), the monitoring system configured to, in operation, determine an onset of defects within the coating region through an emission of acoustic detection waves (via the ultrasonic transducer 51 of fig.10) and an acquisition of corresponding received acoustic waves (via the control assembly 102 of fig.10), the acoustic detection waves characteristics are affected by the aforementioned defects ([0065]-[0069] discloses that the electronic system 100 is a non-destructive testing system using an acoustic device 51, [0066]: “… in an operating condition in which the array of PMUTs functions as receiver, an electrical signal transduced by the piezoelectric 18 that is a function of a deflection of the membrane 8 caused by a pressure wave impacting on the membrane 8 of the PMUT.” Utilizing the teaching of Procopio, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine an onset of defects within the coating region through an emission of acoustic detection waves (via the ultrasonic transducer 51) and an acquisition of corresponding received acoustic waves, the acoustic detection waves characteristics are affected by the aforementioned defects ([0066]: “The control assembly 102 for controlling the array of PMUT is likewise configured to receive and process”). Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Procopio.).
Regarding Claim 3, the system according to claim 1 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the monitoring system includes a first monitoring die having at least one first transducer device, the first monitoring die is coupled to the support base and is within the coating region, and the at least one first transducer device being a micromachined ultrasound transducer (MUT) ([0065]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, the system according to claim 3 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the at least one first transducer device is a piezoelectric transducer (PMUT—Piezoelectric Micromachined Ultrasound Transducer) ([0001]-[0002]; [0012]-[0013]; [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 5, the system according to claim 3 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the at least one first transducer device is a capacitive transducer (CMUT—Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasound Transducer) ([0065]-[0066]; [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 6, the system according to claim 3, wherein: at least one first transducer device is configured to, in operation, emit the acoustic detection waves, which are ultrasound waves, the acoustic detection waves propagate within the coating region in a manner confined to the coating region and to reach the system die [0065]; and the monitoring system is configured to, in operation, process signals detected as a function of the received acoustic waves, which are ultrasound waves to detect the presence of the defects ([0066] discloses that “The control assembly 102 for controlling the array of PMUT is likewise configured to receive and process”). Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Procopio.).
Regarding Claim 7, the system according to claim 6 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the defects is in real time ([0050]; Fig.6).
Regarding Claim 8, the system according to claim 6 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein, in the presence of the defects, the characteristics of the acoustic detection waves in terms of at least one of the following of an amplitude and a corresponding time trend of the signals are different relative to when the defects are absent ([0050]; Fig.6; [0065] - [0066]).
Regarding Claim 9, the system according to claim 3 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein: the monitoring system further includes a second monitoring die having at least one second transducer device ([0065] & [0071] disclose an array of PMUTs ) configured to, in operation, receive the corresponding received acoustic waves, the second monitoring die is coupled to the support base and is within the coating region (shown in fig.7A & 10 and discussed in [0065]-[0066]; [0071]-[0074] ); and the first system die is between the first monitoring die and second monitoring die along a direction of propagation of the acoustic detection waves propagated within the coating region (shown in fig.7A).
Regarding Claim 10, the system according to claim 3 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the at least one first transducer device includes: a matrix of PMUT transducer elements ([0065] & [0071] disclose an array of PMUTs ), configured to, in operation, perform at least one of the following of emit the acoustic detection waves and receive the corresponding received acoustic waves (shown in fig.7A & 10 and discussed in [0065]-[0066]; [0071]-[0074] ); and a corresponding ASIC circuit coupled to the matrix and integrated in the first monitoring die, the corresponding ASIC circuit (the control assembly 102 functions as ASIC circuit) is configured to, in operation, perform at least one of the following of driving the signals and processing the signals ([0066]; Fig.7A & 10).
Regarding Claim 11, the system according to claim 10 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the matrix and the ASIC circuit are coupled on opposite sides of a substrate (fig.7A; element 14), and the substrate having connection elements for electrically coupling the substrate to the support base (shown in fig.7A & 10).
Regarding Claim 14, Procopio teaches a method (Fig.1, 4, 7A and 10; [0065]-[0069]), comprising: monitoring the onset of defects for an integrated electronic system provided with a package including a support base (2), a coating region on the support base (fig.1; region comprising 14, 16, 18, 20), and at least one first system die (fig.4 & 7A; element 35, [0038]) coupled to the support base and in the coating region (shown in fig.1, 4 and 7A), monitoring the onset of defects for the integrated electronic system includes: determining the onset of defects within the coating region by emitting acoustic detection waves (via the ultrasonic transducer 51 of fig.10) and acquiring corresponding received acoustic waves(via the control assembly 102 of fig.10), characteristics of the acoustic detection waves are affected by the defects ([0065]-[0069] discloses that the electronic system 100 is a non-destructive testing system using an acoustic device 51, [0066]: “… in an operating condition in which the array of PMUTs functions as receiver, an electrical signal transduced by the piezoelectric 18 that is a function of a deflection of the membrane 8 caused by a pressure wave impacting on the membrane 8 of the PMUT.” Utilizing the teaching of Procopio, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine an onset of defects within the coating region through an emission of acoustic detection waves (via the ultrasonic transducer 51) and an acquisition of corresponding received acoustic waves, the acoustic detection waves characteristics are affected by the aforementioned defects ([0066]: “The control assembly 102 for controlling the array of PMUT is likewise configured to receive and process”). Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Procopio.).
Regarding Claim 17, Procopio teaches a device (Fig.1, 4, 7A and 10), comprising: a support base (fig.1, 4, 7A; element 2) including a surface (shown in fig.1, 4 & 7A); a monitoring system (fig.10; element 100) on the support base (fig.1, 4, 7A; element 2) including one or more monitoring die (fig.10; element 100) coupled to the surface of the support base (fig.1, 4, 7A; element 2); a die (fig.4 & 7A; element 3553) coupled to the surface of the support base [0038]; and a coating region (fig.1; region comprising 14, 16, 18, 20) on and covering the support base, the monitoring system, and the die (fig.1), and wherein the monitoring system is configured to, in operation, detect an onset of defects within the coating region ([0065]-[0069] discloses that the electronic system 100 is a non-destructive testing system using an acoustic device 51, [0066]: “… in an operating condition in which the array of PMUTs functions as receiver, an electrical signal transduced by the piezoelectric 18 that is a function of a deflection of the membrane 8 caused by a pressure wave impacting on the membrane 8 of the PMUT.” Utilizing the teaching of Procopio, one of ordinary skill in the art may detect an onset of defects within the coating region ([0066]: “The control assembly 102 for controlling the array of PMUT is likewise configured to receive and process”). Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Procopio.).
Regarding Claim 18, the device of claim 17 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the one or more monitoring die includes a first monitoring die configured to, in operation, emit an acoustic detection waves whose characteristics are affected by the defects ([0065]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 19, the device of claim 18 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches wherein the one or more monitoring die includes a second monitoring die configured to, in operation, receive corresponding received acoustic waves ([0065] & [0071] disclose an array of PMUTs (shown in fig.7A & 10 and discussed in [0065]-[0066]; [0071]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 20, the device of claim 19 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio further teaches further comprising: a first interface region between a first surface of the first monitoring die facing away from the support base and the coating region (shown in fig.4 and 7A); and a second interface region between a second surface of the second monitoring die facing way from the support base and the coating region (shown in fig.4, 7A and 10).
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 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Procopio in view of Foulier et al. (US 2023/0175139 A1, “Foulier”).
Regarding Claim 2, the system according to claim 1 is taught by Procopio.
As to the limitation, “wherein the defects include a delamination with at least partial detachment from the coating region,” Procopio discloses the electronic system 100 being a non-destructive testing system [0069]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Procopio to arrive at the instant invention because the electronic system 100 is capable of testing any defect, such as delamination, in the coated substrate 2 non-destructively. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Procopio.
In any event, Fouliard teaches a phosphor thermometry device includes a laser that generates a laser pulse onto a thermal barrier coating (TBC) applied onto a substrate [Abstract] wherein the defects include a delamination with at least partial detachment from the coating region ([0161], [0163], [0184], [0194]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Fouliard regarding delamination testing in the system of Procopio since such testing is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, the method according to claim 13 is taught by Procopio.
As to the limitation, “wherein the defects include at least one of the following of a delamination with at least partial detachment from the coating region,” Procopio discloses the electronic system 100 being a non-destructive testing system [0069]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Procopio to arrive at the instant invention because the electronic system 100 is capable of testing any defect, such as delamination, in the coated substrate 2 non-destructively. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Procopio.
In any event, Fouliard teaches a phosphor thermometry device includes a laser that generates a laser pulse onto a thermal barrier coating (TBC) applied onto a substrate [Abstract] wherein the defects include at least one of the following of a delamination with at least partial detachment from the coating region ([0161], [0163], [0184], [0194]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Fouliard regarding delamination testing in the system of Procopio since such testing is known in the art.
Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Procopio in view of Sullivan et al. (US 2023/0129012 A1, “Sullivan”).
Regarding Claim 12, the system according to claim 3 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio does not explicitly teach that the system further comprising an interface region between a first surface of the first monitoring die and the coating region, the first surface of the first monitoring die is opposite to a second surface of the first monitoring die, and the second surface of the first monitoring die is coupled to the support base, and the interface region having an acoustic impedance matching function.
However, Sullivan teaches an acoustic imaging artifacts produced by imaging systems and devices can be reduced or eliminated by including a multisink medium in the systems or devices wherein the system further comprising an interface region between a first surface of the first monitoring die and the coating region, the first surface of the first monitoring die is opposite to a second surface of the first monitoring die, and the second surface of the first monitoring die is coupled to the support base, and the interface region having an acoustic impedance matching function [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sullivan regarding impedance matching in the system of Procopio since such impedance matching is known in the art which would improve impedance matching at the interface of the coating layer and the surface of the target substance. The matching impedance can improve conduction of acoustic energy at the interface of the coating layer and the surface of the target substance (e.g., either during transmission into the target substance or during receiving of reflected acoustic energy from the target substance) and can reduce loss of (e.g., amplitude) of the acoustic energy [0037].
Regarding Claim 13, the system according to claim 12 is taught by Procopio.
Procopio does not explicitly teach that wherein a thickness of the interface region is sized at ¼ of a wavelength of the acoustic detection waves and a corresponding characteristic impedance, Z3, is calculated as: Z3 = √(Z1.Z2), where Z1 is a characteristic impedance of the coating region and Z2 is a characteristic impedance associated with the at least one first transducer device.
However, Sullivan teaches an acoustic imaging artifacts produced by imaging systems and devices can be reduced or eliminated by including a multisink medium in the systems or devices wherein a thickness of the interface region is sized at ¼ of a wavelength of the acoustic detection waves and a corresponding characteristic impedance, Z3, is calculated as: Z3 = √(Z1.Z2), where Z1 is a characteristic impedance of the coating region and Z2 is a characteristic impedance associated with the at least one first transducer device ([0001]; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sullivan regarding impedance matching in the system of Procopio since such impedance matching is known in the art which would improve impedance matching at the interface of the coating layer and the surface of the target substance. The matching impedance can improve conduction of acoustic energy at the interface of the coating layer and the surface of the target substance (e.g., either during transmission into the target substance or during receiving of reflected acoustic energy from the target substance) and can reduce loss of (e.g., amplitude) of the acoustic energy [0037].
Regarding Claim 15, the method according to claim 13 is taught by Procopio in view of Sullivan.
Procopio further teaches wherein the monitoring is performed in real time ([0050]; Fig.6).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vesely et al. (6,019,725) teaches a 3-D tracking and imaging system (1600) for tracking the position of a surgical instrument (e.g., a catheter, probe, a sensor, needle or the like) inserted into a body, and displaying a 3-D image showing the position of the surgical instrument in reference to a 3-D image of the environment surrounding the surgical instrument. The 3-D tracking and imaging system (1600) aiding a physician in the guidance of the surgical instrument inside the body [Abstract]. The piezoelectric material 1210 may be coated with a 1/4 wavelength matching layer of ultrasound conductive material 1220 (e.g., polymer material). Electrically conductive wires (not shown) are connected to the piezoelectric material. As discussed above, the forward propagating wave of ultrasound typically bounces off of the crystal/water interface, unless some impedance matching material is provided. The purpose of this material is to provide an intermediate impedance between water and PZT so that at each material interface there is less mismatch, and more of the ultrasound wave propagates forward, rather than reflecting backward. Typically, one or two layers are deposited on the crystal with intermediate impedances. The thickness of the layers must be 1/4 of the wavelength of the ultrasound wave so that destructive interface occurs between the reflected waves, thus reducing the ringing of the crystal (col.17; lines 58-67).
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
Prosecution Insights