DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim includes two sentences. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites the limitations “wherein a directivity of the ultrasonic sensor in a direction crossing an extending direction of the groove varies with a presence or absence of a filling material in the groove, the ultrasonic sensor in which the groove is not filled with a non-metallic material has a stronger directivity of the ultrasonic sensor in the direction crossing the extending direction of the groove than the ultrasonic sensor in which the groove is filled with a non-metallic material.” There is no support in the originally filed disclosure for the above limitation. The only mention of a filler in the originally filed disclosure is in [0028] of the published application which recites “Furthermore, for example, by filling the grooves 103 with a non-metallic material, vibration can be suppressed (damping effect).” There is no description on how the directivity is affected by the filler at all. The limitations do not have support in the originally filed disclosure and the claim is rejected for including a new matter.
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 1-15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a groove formed on the bottom surface of the case”, wherein the specific arrangement of the groove is not specified; wherein the groove can be arranged diagonally, radially, circularly or in any other arrangement. The scope of the limitation includes positioning of anywhere on the bottom surface including the edge of the surface where the bottom surface connects with the side of the case, and the claim also recites “wherein a directivity of the ultrasonic sensor in a direction crossing an extending direction of the groove varies with a position of the groove between the side surface and the piezoelectric element” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, as the limitation excludes the scope where the grove is formed radially, and the element is placed at the center of the bottom surface, which will create the scenario where the ultrasonic waves will never cross the groove as the waves will have the same direction as the groove. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a piezoelectric element disposed on the bottom surface of the case”, wherein the specific positioning of the element on the bottom surface is not specified. The scope of the limitation includes positioning of anywhere on the bottom surface including the edge of the surface where the bottom surface connects with the side of the case, and the claim also recites “… the groove at a position close to the side surface has a stronger directivity … than the ultrasonic sensor having the groove at a position close to the piezoelectric element” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, as the limitation indicates that there is space between the side surface and the piezoelectric element. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the one or more grooves" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the groove and the other grooves includes: a first groove …, a second groove …, and a third groove …". It is not clear if “the groove” is one of the first-third grooves or if it is a fourth groove that is separate from the first-third grooves. The scope of the claim could not be determined, and is considered indefinite.
Claims 11-15 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. [US 20110221304] in view of Kojima et al. [US 20080089177].
As to claim 1. Matsumoto discloses An ultrasonic sensor comprising:
a case, [fig. 2, 0039] housing 21, having a bottom surface and a recess formed, [0039] bottomed circular cylindrical housing;
a piezoelectric element, [fig. 2, 0039] piezoelectric element 22, disposed on the bottom surface of the case, [fig. 2]; and
a groove, [fig. 2, 0040] flat portion F, formed on the bottom surface of the recess, [fig. 2], or an inclined surface disposed from the bottom surface to a side surface of the recess, [fig. 2, 0040] a slope portion S.
Matsumoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a directivity of the ultrasonic sensor in a direction crossing an extending direction of the groove varies with a position of the groove between the side surface and the piezoelectric element, the ultrasonic sensor having the groove at a position close to the side surface has a stronger directivity of the ultrasonic sensor in the direction crossing the extending direction of the groove than the ultrasonic sensor having the groove at a position close to the piezoelectric element.
Kojima teaches an ultrasonic sensor and the constructional details of the housing, [figs. 1a, 1b, 0009], comprising a plurality of rigidity changing portions in the form of projections 144 and groove 143 arranged around a contact portion, [figs. 1a, 1b, 0044]; wherein the contact portion is the portion at the bottom surface 141a of the housing that holds the ultrasonic element, [figs. 1a, 1b, 0045]; wherein the rigidity changing portions are arranged in a ring form to surround the contact portion, [0045]; wherein the directivity of the waves traveling outward is increased by increasing the distance between the contact portion and the directivity changing portions, [fig. 3, 0044, 0045, 0047], for waves that propagate radially, [0045] which are orthogonal to the grooves as the grooves are formed as a ring around the element.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto with that of Kojima as nothing but exploiting the natural characteristics of wave propagation to change the directivity of the sensor.
As to claim 2. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein a depth of the groove, [fig. 3] the difference t2 - t1, is greater than a width, [fig. 3] d1, of the groove, [fig. 2, 0049, 0054] when the groove is changed into a curvature with radius d1=R = 0.2mm; [fig. 3, 0044, 0045] wherein the depth t2-t1 = 0.5mm.
As to claim 3. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein a width of the groove is less than or equal to 0.2 mm, [fig. 2, 0049, 0054] when the groove is changed into a curvature with radius R = 0.2mm.
As to claim 4. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the groove is formed in a direction intersecting with a direction in which directivity of an ultrasonic wave is enhanced, [figs. 2, 9, 0073].
As to claim 5. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the groove is formed in a vicinity of the side surface of the recess, [fig. 2].
As to claim 6. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the groove is formed along a shape of the bottom surface, [fig. 2].
As to claim 7. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the one or more grooves are a plurality of grooves, and the plurality of grooves are formed in parallel to each other, [fig. 2].
As to claim 8. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic sensor includes other grooves, the groove and the other grooves are formed in different directions from each other, [fig. 9A].
As to claim 9. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic sensor includes other grooves, one of the groove or the other grooves includes portions formed in different directions from each other, [fig. 9A].
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Kojima as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Watanabe et al. [US 7622849].
As to claim 10. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein
the ultrasonic sensor includes other grooves, [fig. 9A] two grooves on the opposite side of each other,
the case includes the inclined surface, [fig. 2, 0040] a slope portion S,
the groove and the other grooves includes:
a first groove extending into a first portion of the inclined surface to a first depth, [figs. 1-3, 0040, 0043] flat portion F with depth t2 – t1;
a second groove extending into a second portion of the inclined surface to a second depth, [fig. 9A] grooves on the opposite side of the piezoelectric element 22, the first and second grooves positioned on opposite sides of the piezoelectric element, [fig. 9A].
Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach that the first groove reduces rigidity of the first portion of the inclined surface, the second groove reduces rigidity of the second portion of the inclined surface, and the third groove reduces rigidity of the third portion of the bottom surface.
The current application as discussed in the background section, [0003], describes characteristics of the housing that includes a groove as described is known to reduce the rigidity of the surface, which is takes as a self-admitted art establishing the claimed limitation is known in the art at the time of the invention.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsumoto with that of the self-admitted art as nothing but a direct result of cutting grooves on a material which reduces the rigidity of the material by removing a portion of the structural material.
The combination of Matsumoto, and Kojima fails to disclose wherein the sensor further includes a third groove extending into a third portion of the bottom surface to a third depth, the third groove disposed between the first and second grooves and directly underlying the piezoelectric element.
Watanabe teaches an ultrasonic sensor having a vibrator 11 mounted at the center of a substrate 12, [fig. 3B], wherein the surface comprises a plurality of circular grooves 14 around the center of the substrate 12, [fig. 3B], wherein the first and second outer grooves are placed away from the vibrator, and surrounding the vibrator 11, and wherein the two of the grooves are underlying the vibrator, [fig. 3B, col. 4, lines 23-25]; wherein the grooves reduce the rigidity of the substrate [col. 4, lines 43-52].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Matsumoto and Kojima with that of Watanabe so that the rigidity of the substrate can be further reduced to get the desired resonant frequency.
As to claim 11. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 10, wherein
the piezoelectric element is configured to generate an ultrasonic wave having a directivity in a first direction, [0062]; and
the first, and second grooves have widths extending in the first direction and lengths extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction, [fig 9A] the direction of the length of a rectangular object is always perpendicular to the direction of the width.
As to claim 12. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 10, wherein
the first, second, and third grooves have widths extending in a first direction and lengths extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction, the direction of the length of a rectangular object is always perpendicular to the direction of the width, and
each of the first and second grooves includes a first portion extending along the second direction, and a second portion extending from the first portion along the first direction, [fig. 9A].
As to claim 13. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 10, wherein
the first, second, and third grooves have widths extending in a first direction and lengths extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction, the direction of the length of a rectangular object is always perpendicular to the direction of the width, and
the first groove includes a first portion extending along the second direction, a second portion extending from the first portion along the first direction, and a third portion extending from the first portion along the first direction, [fig. 9A], and
the second portion of the first groove is spaced from the third portion of the first groove by the third groove, [fig. 9A], the third groove of Watanabe is placed between the two grooves.
As to claim 14. Matsumoto fails to disclose The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 10, further comprising: a fourth groove extending into a fourth portion of the bottom surface to a fourth depth, the fourth groove disposed between the first and second grooves and directly underlying the piezoelectric element, the fourth groove reduces rigidity of the fourth portion of the bottom surface.
Watanabe teaches an ultrasonic sensor having a vibrator 11 mounted at the center of a substrate 12, [fig. 3B], wherein the surface comprises a plurality of circular grooves 14 around the center of the substrate 12, [fig. 3B], wherein the first and second outer grooves are placed away from the vibrator, and surrounding the vibrator 11, and wherein the two of the grooves are underlying the vibrator, [fig. 3B, col. 4, lines 23-25]; wherein the grooves reduce the rigidity of the substrate [col. 4, lines 43-52].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Matsumoto and Kojima with that of Watanabe so that the rigidity of the substrate can be further reduced to get the desired resonant frequency.
As to claim 15. Matsumoto discloses The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 10, wherein
each of the first and second grooves includes an inclined side surface and an inclined bottom surface that are inclined relative to the bottom surface of the case, [figs. 9A, 9B].
Matsumoto fails to teach wherein the third groove includes a side surface and a bottom surface that is not inclined relative to the bottom surface of the case.
Watanabe teaches an ultrasonic sensor having a vibrator 11 mounted at the center of a substrate 12, [fig. 3B], wherein the surface comprises a plurality of circular grooves 14 around the center of the substrate 12, [fig. 3B], wherein the first and second outer grooves are placed away from the vibrator, and surrounding the vibrator 11, and wherein the two of the grooves are underlying the vibrator, [fig. 3B, col. 4, lines 23-25]; wherein the grooves reduce the rigidity of the substrate [col. 4, lines 43-52].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Matsumoto and Kojima with that of Watanabe so that the rigidity of the substrate can be further reduced to get the desired resonant frequency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688