CTNF 18/532,635 CTNF 94929 Detailed Office Action Notice of Pre-AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 – U.S.C. § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7, 15, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, the phrase “complex” in combination with geometric shape is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US 10,809,233) in view of Wang (US2021/0096108) Regarding claim 1, Abraham teaches a method of forming a backing component via additive manufacturing [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of producing a backing and the structure being capable of attenuated acoustic energy. Abraham teaches forming a structure containing first material with a varying packing density [Abstract], wherein each layer of varying density meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “porous structure”. Abraham teaches that structure is infiltrated with a material and cured [Col 11, line 50 – 65; Fig 2B], meeting the claimed limitation of infiltrating, the porous structure being capable of accepting and keeping the filler material. Abraham does not expressly teach the structure being formed inside a solid structure. Wang teaches forming an acoustic transducer without intervening layers between the backing and the stack [Abstract]. Wang teaches that the acoustic stack is placed in a mold and the backing is produced on top of it [Abstract]. Wang teaches that the mold forming the layers can be produced by additive manufacturing [0033], the mold interpreted as a solid structure as claimed and the backing layer being within the mold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Abraham and combined it with the method of Wang such that both the mold and the acoustic backing are produced together in an additive manufacturing process. Abraham and Wang are directed to the same field of endeavor of ultrasonic traducer probes, including using additive manufacturing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Moreover, Abraham teaches that the additive manufacturing of the backing layer allows for complex shapes that are near to the desired final shape [Col 12, line 1 – 6] and Wang suggests that using the mold structure, which can be produced by additive manufacturing, and forming the backing layer within said mold allows for the combing of the stack and backing without intervening layers/adhesive. Regarding claim 2, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Abraham teaches that the near net shape component produced for the backing layer can undergo some grinding and machining [Col 4, line 34 – 38; and Col 12, line 4 – 8]. Given that the component is near net shape, it is reasonably suggested that minor machining and/or grinding of the exterior/outer area of the component can be conducted to ensure that the dimensions are exactly as desired. Meeting the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 3, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wherein the mold of Wang, interpreted as a solid structure, would cover one or more of the porous layers of Abraham, interpreted as claimed porous structure. Meeting the claimed limitation of claim 3. Regarding claim 4 – 5, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Wherein the mold of Wang, interpreted as a solid structure, contains a passage [Fig 3A]. Wherein said passage would allow for material to be infiltrated/filled into it of claim 4. Wherein the mold extends beyond the surface and surrounds the porous structure, creating a reservoir for infiltration of the porous layer [Fig 3A]. Regarding claim 6, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Abraham teaches that the backing can have varying porosity layers across the dimension of the backing layer [Col 12, line 9 – 21]. Wherein one such layer meets the limitation of a porous structure, and other layers between it and the exterior meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “spacer”. Regarding claim 7, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Abraham shows forming a shape [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 8, Abraham teaches a method of forming a backing component via additive manufacturing [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of producing a backing and the structure being capable of attenuated acoustic energy. Abraham teaches forming a structure containing first material with a varying packing density [Abstract], wherein each layer of varying density meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “porous structure” and a “porous portion”. Abraham teaches that structure is infiltrated with a material and cured [Col 11, line 50 – 65; Fig 2B], meeting the claimed limitation of infiltrating, the porous structure being capable of accepting and keeping the filler material. Abraham does not expressly teach the structure being formed with a solid structure. Wang teaches forming an acoustic transducer without intervening layers between the backing and the stack [Abstract]. Wang teaches that the acoustic stack is placed in a mold and the backing is produced on top of it [Abstract]. Wang teaches that the mold forming the layers can be produced by additive manufacturing [0033], the mold interpreted as a solid structure as claimed and the backing layer being within the mold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Abraham and combined it with the method of Wang such that both the mold and the acoustic backing are produced together in an additive manufacturing process. Abraham and Wang are directed to the same field of endeavor of ultrasonic traducer probes, including using additive manufacturing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Moreover, Abraham teaches that the additive manufacturing of the backing layer allows for complex shapes that are near to the desired final shape [Col 12, line 1 – 6] and Wang suggests that using the mold structure, which can be produced by additive manufacturing, and forming the backing layer within said mold allows for the combing of the stack and backing without intervening layers/adhesive. Wherein one layer of porosity (interpreted as a porous structure) would have a top, bottom, and sides. Wherein the mold covers all sides except the top, meeting the claimed limitation of a solid structure. Wherein another porous layer positioned above the porous layer interpreted as the porous structure would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the porous portion. Regarding claim 9, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 8. Abraham teaches that the near net shape component produced for the backing layer can undergo some grinding and machining [Col 4, line 34 – 38; and Col 12, line 4 – 8]. Given that the component is near net shape, it is reasonably suggested that minor machining and/or grinding of the exterior/outer area of the component can be conducted to ensure that the dimensions are exactly as desired. Meeting the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 10, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 8. Wherein one layer of porosity (interpreted as a porous structure) would have a top, bottom, and sides, meeting the claimed limitation of the porous structure having multiple surfaces. Wherein the mold covers all sides except the top, meeting the claimed limitation of a solid portion covering all but one side. Wherein another porous layer positioned above the porous layer interpreted as the porous structure would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the porous portion covering the one surface not covered by the solid portion. Regarding claim 11, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 10. Wherein Abraham teaches forming the backing layer by binder jet additive manufacturing and controlling packing density to controlling the porosity/infiltration amount [Col 9, line 30 – 35; Col 4, line 4]. The higher packing density indicates lower pore size, meeting the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 12 – 13, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 8. Wherein one layer of porosity (interpreted as a porous structure) would have a top, bottom, and sides, meeting the claimed limitation of the porous structure having multiple surfaces. Wherein the mold contacts and covers the sides, meeting the claimed limitation of a solid portion covering all but two sides. Wherein two other porous layers positioned above and below the porous layer interpreted as the porous structure, would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the porous portion covering the two surfaces and the two surfaces being on opposite sides of the porous structure. Regarding claim 14, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Wherein Abraham teaches forming the backing layer by binder jet additive manufacturing and controlling packing density to controlling the porosity/infiltration amount [Col 9, line 30 – 35; Col 4, line 4]. As such, the higher packing density indicates lower pore size, meeting the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 15, Abraham in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 8. Abraham shows forming a shape [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US 10,809,233) Regarding claim 16, Abraham teaches a method of forming a backing component via additive manufacturing [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of producing a backing and the structure being capable of attenuated acoustic energy. Abraham teaches forming a structure containing first material with a varying packing density [Abstract], wherein each layer of varying density meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “porous structure”. Abraham teaches an embodiment in which a porous structure of increasing packing density is disposed around a porous structure/area of decreasing packing density [Fig 1; Col 5, line 56 – 67]. Abraham teaches that structure is infiltrated with a material and cured [Col 11, line 50 – 65; Fig 2B], meeting the claimed limitation of infiltrating, the porous structure being capable of accepting and keeping the filler material. Regarding claim 17, Abraham teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. Abraham teaches that the near net shape component produced for the backing layer can undergo some grinding and machining [Col 4, line 34 – 38; and Col 12, line 4 – 8]. Given that the component is near net shape, it is reasonably suggested that minor machining and/or grinding of the exterior/outer area of the component can be conducted to ensure that the dimensions are exactly as desired. Regarding claim 18, Abraham teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. Wherein the increasing packing density porous structure covers the decreasing porous structure [Fig 2] Regarding claim 19, Abraham teaches the invention as applied in claim 18. Wherein Abraham teaches forming the backing layer by binder jet additive manufacturing and controlling packing density to controlling the porosity/infiltration amount [Col 9, line 30 – 35; Col 4, line 4]. The higher packing density indicates lower pore size, meeting the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 20, Abraham teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. Abraham shows forming a shape [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation. Relevant Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2020/0170620 – backing with tessellation pattern US2018/0079134 – Porous 3D printed articles infiltrated US 8,544,597 – Forming tuned damper material via AM Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5). 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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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. /AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/532,635 Page 2 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/532,635 Page 3 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/532,635 Page 4 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/532,635 Page 5 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/532,635 Page 6 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/532,635 Page 7 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/532,635 Page 9 Art Unit: 1738
Prosecution Insights