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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 6-7, the terms “first insulation dielectric layer”, “second insulation dielectric layer”, and “third insulation layer” should each have an “a” in front of the terms, such that each term reads: “a first insulation dielectric layer”, “a second insulation dielectric layer”, and “a third insulation layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In sections “d” and “e”, each instance of the phrase “grounded state” and “floating state” should each have a “the” in front of the terms, such that each term reads: “the grounded state” and “the floating state”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In section “j”, the phrase “opening for metal pad connections” should each have an “an” in front of the term, such that each term reads: “an opening for metal pad connections”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In claim 1, the phrases “the CMUT cell” line 5 and the phrase “the lightning rod structure” in line 9 are each indefinite. Lines 3-4 establish at least two array elements, wherein each of the at least two array elements features a plurality of CMUT cells and a single lightning rod structure, so it is unclear what the claimed “the CMUT cell” (singular) and “the lighting rod structure” (singular) are referring to, when the device includes at least two arrays having a plurality of CMUT cells, and a single lightning structure (a single lighting rod structure within each of the at least two array elements). It appears that line 5 should refer to “each of the plurality of the CMUT cells”, and line 9 should refer to “each of the lighting rod structures”.
In claim 2, lines 3-5, the language “a Faraday cage electrode is conductive and common to the plurality of CMUT cells and the said lightning rod structure of the said array element, but the Faraday cage electrode is electrically isolated from Faraday cage electrodes of all other array elements” is confusing and unclear. The phrase “a Faraday cage electrode is conductive and common to the plurality of CMUT cells and the said lightning rod structure of the said array element” is confusing in that it attempts to establish “a Faraday cage”, but does not positively recite a Faraday cage in a way that a person or ordinary skill would understand where or how it is arranged. The phrase describes that the Faraday cage is functionally “conductive and common to the plurality of CMUT cells and the said lightning rod structure of the said array element”, but the Faraday cage electrode “is electrically isolated from Faraday cage electrodes of all other array elements”, without reciting any structural limitations so as to effectuate the functional language. It is unclear how or where the Faraday cage electrode is arranged such that it performs the claimed functionality of being “conductive and common to the plurality of CMUT cells and the said lightning rod structure” while also being “electrically isolated from Faraday cage electrodes of all other array elements”.
Further in claim 2, lines 9-10, the terms “M #” and “M#” are confusing. First, it is unclear if these two terms are the same and include a typographical error (“M #” with a space vs “M#” without a space), or if they are referring to two different elements. From the disclosure it appears Applicant intends to claim “wherein the number of array elements have an equal number of Faraday cage electrodes,” or something similar. Further amendment or clarification is necessary.
Further in claim 2, beginning in line 6 and including sections d-f, the requirement that the “Faraday cage electrode is either in grounded or floating state” is confusing, as the claim appears to claim the grounded or floating states as being alternative, but the claim later includes language that implies that the Faraday cage electrode somehow operates in both a grounded and floating state, possibly at different times or under different conditions. The scope of the claim is unclear, and Applicant should positively recite when and how the grounded and floating states are achieved and how the device switches between, or alternatively operates in the differing states. This language is largely functional, but it is unclear how the different sates are achieved and switched between one another. Additionally, the phrase “the grounded and floating state of the said Faraday cage are preferred in transmit and receive operation of the said CMUT array element” is indefinite, as it is unclear if the “preferred” language is optional, or a requirement of the claim.
In claim 3, the phrases “each of the at least two array elements based on transmit or receive operation, is allowed to feature floating or grounded state of the unique Faraday cage electrode of the each of the at least two array elements regardless of the operational status (transmit or receive) of the other array elements for ultimate CMUT performance, and “CMUT cells are allowed to can operate in conventional, collapse, resistive-collapse and collapse-snapback modes” are confusing and unclear. It is unclear what the phrase “is/are allowed to” means. Is this intended to be similar to “adapted to” or “configured to” language? Is there some structure or different state of operation that “allows” the two array elements and CMUT cells to operate as claimed? Is Applicant intending to claim the floating/grounded state and conventional/collapse/resistive-collapse/collapse-snapback modes are alternative preselected forms of operation, or can they some how switch between said modes, such that they are “allowed” to operate as claimed. Additionally, the term “(transmit or receive)” in parenthesis in lines 4-5 is indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the language in parenthesis is a requirement of the claim.
In claim 4, lines 6, the phrase “the gap is allowed to can be vacuum-sealed or of air-filled” is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what the phrase “is allowed to” means. Is this intended to be similar to “adapted to” or “configured to” language? Is there some structure or different state of operation that “allows” the gap to be vacuum-sealed or of air-filled as claimed? Is Applicant intending to claim that the gap being vacuum-sealed or of air-filled as claimed gap configurations, or can they somehow be switched between the two configurations? Further amendment or clarification is necessary.
In claim 5, lines 7, 16, and 28-29, the terms “(bottom and top),” “(using LTO as hard mask)” and “(with dimples)” in parenthesis are indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the language in parenthesis is a requirement of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892. It is noted that there is no art rejection for claims 1-5, as currently presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837