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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/13/2026.
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, 3-6, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono (US 2008/0015443 A1; search report) and Angelsen (US 2007/0035204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hosono teaches an ultrasound probe comprising:
a plurality of piezoelectric elements that are arranged in an array on a backing material along an azimuth direction [[abstract] two-dimensional array ultrasonic probe includes a plurality of channels arranged apart from each other in a two dimensional direction; [fig. 1] shows piezoelectric elements #20 on backing layer #1],
wherein each of the plurality of piezoelectric elements consists of a laminate in which a signal electrode layer, a piezoelectric body portion, and a ground electrode layer are sequentially laminated on a surface of the backing material [[abstract] laminated piezoelectric element including a plurality of first and second electrodes … signal side electrode and a ground electrode are formed to respectively extend from both side surface of the piezoelectric body … laminated piezoelectric element is mounted to a backing member],
each of the piezoelectric elements is divided into a plurality of divided element portions in an elevation direction [[0054] plate-like laminated body 55 is cut at a width of, for example, about 400 μm by the dicing treatment so as to obtain a plurality of strip-like laminated bodies 58 each comprising the strip-like sintered body 56 in which the internal electrodes 51 forming 6 layers are alternately arranged on the piezoelectric body 21,],
a plurality of acoustic matching layers corresponding to the plurality of divided element portions and disposed on the ground electrode layer of each of the divided element portions are provided [[fig. 4] shows ground #42 on backing layer #1; [0035] each channel 10 comprises a laminated piezoelectric element 20 and an acoustic matching layer 30 of, for example, a single layer structure, which is arranged on the laminated piezoelectric element 20. It is possible for the acoustic matching layer 30 to be formed of a laminated structure consisting of at least two layers],
gaps between the plurality of piezoelectric elements arranged in the azimuth direction and between the plurality of divided element portions in each of the piezoelectric elements are filled with a filler [[0036] notch is formed in that portion of the piezoelectric body 21 including the side edge of each of the second electrode 23 which is positioned in one side surface 21a of the piezoelectric body 21, and the notch thus formed is filled with, for example, an epoxy resin so as to form the insulating member 24 … Likewise, a notch is formed in that portion of the piezoelectric body 21 including the side edge of each of the first electrode 22 which is positioned in the other side surface 21b of the piezoelectric body 21, and the notch thus formed is filled with, for example, an epoxy resin so as to form the insulating member 25],
a conductive member is disposed on each of a pair of side surfaces at both ends of each of the divided element portions in the elevation direction [[0036] our side surfaces of the piezoelectric body 21 having a rectangular cross section include two side surfaces 21a and 21b positioned to face each other in the Y-direction of each channel 10, i.e., in the arranging direction of the channel 10. On side edge alone of each of the first electrodes 22 is exposed to the side surface 21a noted above, and a side edge alone of each of the second electrodes 23 is exposed to the other side surface 21b noted above.], and
the conductive member is connected to the ground electrode layer of the divided element portion [[0038] round lines 46 are electrically connected to each other at the portions where the ground side electrode 42 is connected to the backing member 1 of the ground side electrode 42. Incidentally, it is possible to use a ground electrode plate that is not patterned as a common ground line.].
Hosono does not explicitly teach and yet Angelsen teaches a plurality of piezoelectric elements that are arranged in an array on one continuous backing material [[fig. 4] shows backing material #320 with electrodes #314 and #315 array elements; [prior art claim 5] ceramic piezolayer forms a laterally continuous layer that forms said back layer of said isolation section], the plurality of divided element portions are disposed on the one continuous backing material [[0042] elements in an ultrasound array can be defined through cuts in the piezolayer, and in the case of ceramic/polymer composites these cuts can coincide with cuts of the composite, where the electrodes are used to define the array element; [0047] piezolayer are diced from the back of the layer but not diced completely through; [prior art claim 17] low frequency radiation surface is divided into transducer elements so that the size of the low frequency transmit surface can be selectably varied for the application].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the individual dicing as shown in Hosono, with the partial dicing as taught by Angelsen so that dicing of the backing layer with or without fill is not required (Angelsen) [[0042][0046]].
Regarding claim 3, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the conductive member formed on the side surface of each of the divided element portions extends to the divided element portions adjacent along a lower part of the filler that fills gaps between the adjacent divided element portions in the elevation direction, and is connected to the conductive member disposed on the side surface of the adjacent divided element portion [[two-dimensional array ultrasonic probe, the piezoelectric elements are arranged in general in a manner to form a matrix having m rows and n columns (mxn)]; [0011-0012] describes prior art which connects piezoelectric elements in columns (and rows) for addressing an array in a matrix form].
Regarding claim 4, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the conductive member has a hardness higher than a hardness of the filler [[0045] each of the signal side electrode 41 and the ground side electrode 42 is formed of a laminated metal film of, for example, a Cr/Au (front side) structure. "; [prior art claim 4] probe according to claim 3, wherein the insulating member is formed of an epoxy resin." ; noted: metal (Cr/Au) has a higher hardness than epoxy resin].
Regarding claim 5, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein the conductive member has a hardness higher than a hardness of the filler [[0045][prior art claim 4]].
Regarding claim 6, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 3, wherein the conductive member has a hardness higher than a hardness of the filler [[0045][prior art claim 4]].
Regarding claim 10, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than a wavelength of an ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[0041] desirable for the backing member 1 to have a sufficient thickness relative to the wavelength of the ultrasonic wave of a prescribed frequency used, i.e., to have a thickness adapted for sufficiently attenuating the ultrasonic wave in order to maintain the satisfactory acoustic characteristics exhibited by the two-dimensional array ultrasonic probe; [0047] each of the signal side electrode 41 and the ground side electrode 42 is formed of a laminated metal film of, for example, a Cr/Au (front side) structure. It is desirable for each of these electrodes to have a thickness of 100 nm to 2 μm. If each of these electrodes is thinner than 100 nm, it is possible for each of the signal side electrode 41 and the ground side electrode 42 to be broken by the vibration of the laminated piezoelectric element 20. On the other hand, if the thickness of each of these electrodes exceeds 2 μm, the acoustic load is increased in each of the signal side electrode 41 and the ground side electrode 42].
Regarding claim 11, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than a wavelength of an ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[0041][0047]].
Regarding claim 12, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 3, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than a wavelength of an ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[0041][0047]].
Regarding claim 13, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 4, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than a wavelength of an ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[0041][0047]].
Regarding claim 14, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 5, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than a wavelength of an ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[0041][0047]].
Regarding claim 15, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 6, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than a wavelength of an ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[0041][0047]].
Regarding claim 16, Hosono teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 7, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than a wavelength of an ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[0041][0047]].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono (US 2008/0015443 A1) and Angelsen (US 2007/0035204 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2021/0255149 A1; search report).
Regarding claim 2, Hosono does not explicitly teach and yet Kim teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the conductive member extends to a side surface of the acoustic matching layer that is disposed on the ground electrode layer of each of the divided element portions in the elevation direction [[0030] electrode formed on the matching layer may be electrically connected to a ground electrode of the piezo electric layer; [0120] electrical connection may be easily achieved without using a conductive matching layer, thereby reducing the manufacturing cost . In addition, while the conductive matching layer is made of carbon and thus may be vulnerable to an external impact, a probe resistant to an external impact may be produced by using a non - conductive matching layer; [prior art claim 1] first electrode … a matching layer disposed above the piezoelectric layer and comprising one or more grooves connected to the one or more kerfs; and a third electrode formed in inner surfaces of the one or more grooves and electrically connected to the first electrode].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to extend the side electrodes as part of the transducer arrays as taught by Hosono, with the electrodes taught in the inner surfaces of the grooves formed to the matching layer as taught by Kim so that the elements are connected electrically.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono (US 2008/0015443 A1) and Angelsen (US 2007/0035204 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamashita (US 2007/0282204 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hosono does not explicitly teach and yet Yamashita teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 4, wherein the conductive member has a Shore hardness of 80 or more [[0052] possible to use an electrically conductive carbon fiber.; [fig. 10] shows shore hardness up to 90, with comparative example 3 at shore hardness of 80].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elements as part of the transducer arrays as taught by Hosono, with the shore hardness of up to 90 as taught by Yamashita so that the transducer is more resistant to damage.
Regarding claim 8, Hosono does not explicitly teach and yet Yamashita teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 5, wherein the conductive member has a Shore hardness of 80 or more [[0052][fig. 10]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elements as part of the transducer arrays as taught by Hosono, with the shore hardness of up to 90 as taught by Yamashita so that the transducer is more resistant to damage.
Regarding claim 9, Hosono does not explicitly teach and yet Yamashita teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 6, wherein the conductive member has a Shore hardness of 80 or more [[0052][fig. 10]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elements as part of the transducer arrays as taught by Hosono, with the shore hardness of up to 90 as taught by Yamashita so that the transducer is more resistant to damage.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono (US 2008/0015443 A1) and Angelsen (US 2007/0035204 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wakabayashi (US 2015/0245815 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hosono does not explicitly teach and yet Wakabayashi teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 10, wherein the conductive member has a thickness having a dimension smaller than one-tenth of the wavelength of the ultrasonic wave emitted from the piezoelectric element [[abstract] a piezoelectric element; an electrode formed on a surface of the piezoelectric element; a conductive wire including a distal end that is in contact with the electrode; and a metal film formed by an electroplating method, the metal film coating at least the distal end of the wire and the electrode that are in contact with each other and thereby electrically connecting the electrode and the wire; [0036] metal thin film; [0060] material forming the metal film 13 and a wavelength of ultrasound to be transmitted/received by the ultrasound observation section 1. In the present embodiment, where a wavelength, in the material forming the metal film 13, of ultrasound having a highest frequency from among ultrasounds to be transmitted/received by the ultrasound observation section 1 is λ, an upper limit tmax of the thickness of the metal film 13 is preferably λ/10 or less, more preferably, λ/20 or less].]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductive member as taught by Hosono, to have a thickness of less than one tenth the wavelength of the ultrasound frequency as taught by Wakabayashi so that a thin film is formed (Wakabayashi) [[0060]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7, filed 1/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Angelsen (US 2007/0035204 A1).
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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights