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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-5 are amended.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are pending.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-2, 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenzel (US 10557938 B2) in view of Feldic (DE 102013011186 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guenzel teaches a membrane[Abstract, Claim 1 and #5 in Fig 1 is membrane];
and a piezo element configured to emit an ultrasonic signal via the membrane [Piezoelectric element #12 in fig 1; Col 6, Lines 40-55];
wherein the membrane wherein the membrane has a molecular level resonant frequency within an infrared range and is configured to emit infrared energy when it receives an energy input[ Col 1 line 60- Col 2 Line 10 has ultrasonic sensors for emitting heat via membrane vibration and a body that emits heat is inherently emitting infrared radiation based on the principles of physics].
Feldic teaches that wherein the membrane has a molecular level resonant frequency within an infrared range. [0015 has heating by means of ultrasonic vibrations and a body that emits heat is inherently emitting infrared radiation based on the principles of physics] and further teaches that wherein the membrane is configured to emit infrared energy when it receives an energy input[0015 has heating by means of ultrasonic vibrations].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have used the ultrasonic vibrations of Guenzel with the heating by means of vibration in Feldic to use the heat generated due to vibration to melt snow and ice.
Regarding claim 2, Guenzel teaches wherein the energy input is one selected from a group consisting of an ultrasonic signal emitted by the piezo element, a radiofrequency signal, and an electromagnetic energy. [Piezoelectric element #12 in fig 1; Col 6, Lines 40-55 vibrates the membrane meaning energy is put into it].
Regarding claim 10, Guenzel, as modified, teaches a generally cylindrical body including a first end and a second end opposite the first end I[Fig 1 shows cylinder shape]; wherein the second end is configured to amplify and shape a sound envelope of the ultrasonic signal. [Fig 1 has sound coming out of the end with sensor housing window #4a]
Regarding claim 11, Guenzel, as modified, teaches wherein the membrane further comprises: an inner surface defining an aperture at the first end, the aperture extending into the body toward the second end; wherein the piezo element is positioned within the aperture. [Fig 1 has membrane #5 with peizo element on #12 which ultrasound being transmitted out towards housing window #4a]
Regarding claim 13, Guenzel, as modified, teaches a first portion disposed toward the first end, the first portion having a first volume[Fig 1 shows portion ef ore membrane #5]; and a second portion disposed toward the second end, the second portion having a second volume[Fig 1 has portion after membrane #5 till attenuator #11]; wherein the second volume is lesser than the first volume[second portion is smaller than first portion], and the piezo element is positioned within the second portion. [Piezoelement #12 is in second portion]
Regarding claim 14, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the membrane further comprises: a ridge proximal to the first end, extending circumferentially around the body and configured to engage with a decoupling ring of the ultrasonic sensor. [Abstract has decoupling ring protecting membrane]
Feldic teaches that wherein the membrane further comprises: a ridge proximal to the first end, extending circumferentially around the body and configured to engage with a decoupling ring of the ultrasonic sensor. [Abstract has decoupling ring protecting membrane]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have used the ultrasonic vibrations of Guenzel with the decoupling ring of Feldic to use the decoupling ring to protect the membrane.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenzel (US 10557938 B2) in view of Feldic (DE 102013011186 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (2023).
Regarding claim 4, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the molecular level resonant frequency is between 0.3 and 400 THz.
Wikipedia teaches that wherein the molecular level resonant frequency is between 0.3 and 400 THz. [Infrared radiation is between 300 GHz-430 THz meaning a body that heats up will emit radiation in the claimed range based on the principles of physics]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have used the ultrasonic vibrations of Guenzel with the claimed range as taught by Wikipedia as a body that emits heat emits energy in the claimed range based on the principles of physics. Moreover It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to claim such a range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the molecular level resonant frequency is between 0.3 and 20 THz.
Wikipedia teaches that wherein the molecular level resonant frequency is between 0.3 and 20 THz. [Infrared radiation is between 300 GHz-430 THz meaning a body that heats up will emit radiation in the claimed range based on the principles of physics]
Regarding claim 6, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the membrane is configured to emit infrared photon energy between 1.2 and 1,653 meV.
Wikipedia teaches that wherein the membrane is configured to emit infrared photon energy between 1.2 and 1,653 meV. [The table has Infrared radiation having energy between 886-1653 mEV for the near infrared range meaning a body that heats up will emit radiation in the claimed range based on the principles of physics]
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenzel (US 10557938 B2) in view of Feldic (DE 102013011186A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Rinaldi (US 20210196989 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the membrane is composed of a metal alloy having a chemical composition of 45-90% by weight of at least one selected from a group consisting of silica (SiO2), alumina (A12O3), Zinc Sulfide (ZnS), and Zinc Selenide (ZnSe).
Rinaldi teaches that wherein the membrane is composed of a metal alloy having a chemical composition of 45-90%by weight of at least one selected from a group consisting of silica (SiO2), alumina (A12O3), Zinc Sulfide (ZnS), and Zinc Selenide (ZnSe). [0073 has membrane for pMUT made of silicon dioxide]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have used the ultrasonic vibrations of Guenzel with material taught in Rinaldi to make the membrane based on its properties and suitability. Moreover It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use silicon dioxide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the metal alloy includes at least one selected from a group consisting of aluminum, steel, nickel, iron, magnesium, titanium, copper, and tungsten.
Rinaldi teaches that wherein the metal alloy includes at least one selected from a group consisting of aluminum, steel, nickel, iron, magnesium, titanium, copper, and tungsten. [0073 also has aluminum, 0096 has iron and titanium and copper].
Regarding claim 12, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the aperture is generally oblong in shape.
Rinaldi teaches that wherein the aperture is generally oblong in shape. [Fig 21 and 0089, 0133 has aperture]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have used the ultrasonic vibrations of Guenzel the aperture in Rinaldi to obtain a desired focus.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenzel (US 10557938 B2) in view of Feldic (DE 102013011186A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kassel (US 20210053052 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Guenzel does not explicitly teach wherein the membrane is coated with a compound containing at least one selected from a group consisting of silica (SiO2), alumina (Al203), Zinc Sulfide (ZnS), and Zinc Selenide (ZnSe).
Rinaldi teaches that wherein the membrane is coated with a compound containing at least one selected from a group consisting of silica (SiO2), alumina (A12O3), Zinc Sulfide (ZnS), and Zinc Selenide (ZnSe). [0039 has silica and alumina coating]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have used the ultrasonic vibrations of Guenzel with coating taught in Rinaldi to alter or protect the membrane based on its properties and suitability. Moreover It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use silica or alumina, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The prior art has heat being generated by vibration and a body that generates heat is by default emitting energy in the infrared range which is what the claim requires.
Applicants arguments on pages 4-6 of the remarks are reading the prior art overly narrowly. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific materials and frequencies as argued on page 5) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover the fact that a body is emitting infrared radiation means it is emitting at the frequencies being claimed meaning it reads on the limitation. Moreover applicants’ reliance on the term “molecular level resonant frequency” is using making a technical term appear to mean more than it actually does. Applicant does not does not explain what the term is or what applicants means by it besides saying the prior art does not have it and the invention does. The invention emits infrared energy which is head and so does the prior art meaning it has “molecular level resonant frequency” in the infrared range.
Additionally other pertinent references as shown below also read on applicant’s claim of Thz frequencies and infrared range.
US- 20240015445- shows ultrasonic sensors and THz frequencies at 0033, 0039-0040 and 0224.
US- 20210187329 - shows ultrasonic sensors and THz frequencies at 0002, 0029 and 0036.
US- 20210157998 - shows ultrasonic sensors and THz frequencies at 0340 and 0451.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645