DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (DE) 102023203937.0 filed on 27th April, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species VI, Claim(s) 1-17, and 19-23 as illustrated in Figure(s) 7 in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” or “(a)(2)” or both as being anticipated by HERZOG (US 2023/0354714 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, HERZOG teaches an ultrasonic device ([0059]; FIG. 3: sound transducer device 200), comprising:
at least one micromachined ultrasonic transducer (MUT) ([0016]; [0018]; [0021]; [0059]; FIG. 3: micromechanical component 100);
processing circuitry electrically coupled to the at least one MUT ([0017]; [0028]-[0030]; [0059]: control circuit ASIC chip 12);
wherein the at least one MUT and the processing circuitry are arranged in an embedded wafer level ball grid array (eWLB) package ([0016]-[0017]; [0031]; Fig. 3); and
wherein an acoustic coupling medium for acoustic coupling of the at least one MUT to an external application surface is formed on the at least one MUT ([0009]; Fig’s. 3-4).
Referring to Claim 2, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
control the at least one MUT to selectively emit ultrasonic waves ([0028]: an electric circuit designed to control the at least one piezoelectric element in order to thereby induce vibrations of the diaphragm; [0016]: The at least one piezoelectric element is designed to produce and/or detect vibrations of the diaphragm in the ultrasonic range; [0030]: The ASIC chip may also control the at least one piezoelectric element by corresponding control signals in order to excite the diaphragm to vibrate); and
process one or more output signals of the at least one MUT ([0028]: The control circuit acts as an evaluation circuit, i.e., can evaluate the received measurement signal), wherein the at least one MUT is configured to generate the one or more output signals based on received ultrasonic waves ([0028]: The at least one piezoelectric element converts vibrations of the diaphragm into electrical measurement signals and transmits them to the control circuit by means of the at least one electrical contact connection).
Referring to Claim 3, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic device comprises a plurality of MUTs, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
control at least a first one of the plurality of MUTs to emit ultrasonic waves ([0016]; [0028]: he term “control circuit” may be understood to mean an electric circuit designed to control the at least one piezoelectric element in order to thereby induce vibrations of the diaphragm; [0030]: The ASIC chip may also control the at least one piezoelectric element by corresponding control signals in order to excite the diaphragm to vibrate); and
process one or more output signals of at least a second one of the plurality of MUTs ([0028]: The control circuit acts as an evaluation circuit, i.e., can evaluate the received measurement signal), the one or more output signals being generated by at least the second one of the plurality of MUTs based on received ultrasonic waves ([0028]: The at least one piezoelectric element converts vibrations of the diaphragm into electrical measurement signals and transmits them to the control circuit by means of the at least one electrical contact connection.).
Referring to Claim 8, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 1, wherein the acoustic coupling medium is formed on a membrane of each MUT of the at least one MUT ([0009]; [0016]; [0032]).
Referring to Claim 10, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 1, wherein the acoustic coupling medium is a gel ([0061]: A gel 8 is formed above the diaphragm 45. Piezoelectric elements 47 are arranged between the diaphragm 45 and the substrate 20 and are connected to the diaphragm 45).
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a method of forming the ultrasonic device of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERZOG as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of TSAI (US 2015/0179591 A1).
Referring to Claim 4, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one MUT is embedded in a mold compound of the eWLB package; wherein one or more redistribution layers are formed on the mold compound for electrically coupling the processing circuitry to the at least one MUT; and wherein a recess is provided in the one or more redistribution layers for accommodating the acoustic coupling medium.
TSAI teaches wherein the at least one MUT is embedded in a mold compound of the eWLB package ([0019]: The through package vias 50, […], are embedded in and pass through the molding compound 38);
wherein one or more redistribution layers are formed on the mold compound for electrically coupling the processing circuitry to the at least one MUT ([0020]: the bottom package 14 also includes a backside redistribution layer 52); and
wherein a recess is provided in the one or more redistribution layers for accommodating the acoustic coupling medium ([0023]: As shown, a recess 58 extends through the passivation layer 40, the buffer layer 44, and the optional tape layer 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ultrasonic device disclosed in HERZOG with the at least one MUT taught in TSAI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided electrical routing, package integration, and improved package reliability, thereby yielding a compact and reliable package for the transducer and control circuitry.
Referring to Claim 5, TSAI teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 4, wherein the recess is provided in the one or more redistribution layers at a position of the at least one MUT ([0023]: As shown, a recess 58 extends through the passivation layer 40, the buffer layer 44, and the optional tape layer 46 […] The recess 58 is vertically aligned with the underlying through package via 50).
Referring to Claim 6, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 4, wherein a protrusion surrounding the recess is formed on the one or more redistribution layers ([0023]: As shown, a recess 58 extends through the passivation layer 40, the buffer layer 44, and the optional tape layer 46; [0024]: Moreover, a portion of the redistribution layer bond pad 16 projects or extends above a top surface of the molding compound 38 […] the central portion of the redistribution layer bond pad 16 protrudes or projects upwardly into the recess 58 while outer portions of the redistribution layer bond pad 16 are embedded in the molding compound 38).
Referring to Claim 7, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 4, further comprising:
one or more interconnects coupled to the processing circuitry via the one or more redistribution layers ([0021]: Solder features 54 are formed or mounted on, and electrically coupled to, the protruding redistribution layer bond pads 16).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERZOG as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of BERARD-ANDERSEN (US 2015/0018686 A1).
Referring to Claim 9, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the acoustic coupling medium comprises silicone.
BERARD-ANDERSEN teaches the acoustic coupling medium comprises silicone (Abstract: sonolucent gel layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ultrasonic device disclosed in HERZOG with the acoustic coupling medium taught in BERARD-ANDERSEN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided acoustic coupling for the ultrasonic operation, thereby improving transmission of ultrasonic energy between the transducer and an external energy.
Referring to Claim 11, HERZOG teaches the ultrasonic device of claim 1, wherein an acoustic impedance of the acoustic coupling medium is lower than an acoustic impedance of the at least one MUT ([0003]: a water-based gel (hydrogel) is placed between the patient's skin and the probe to ensure good acoustic coupling; [0004]: the acoustic impedance of the tissue adjacent to each transducer is used to determine the presence of aerated and non-aerated tissue).
Claim(s) 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERZOG in view of FIFE (US 2019/0231312 A1).
Referring to Claim 12, HERZOG teaches an ultrasonic assembly, comprising:
an ultrasonic device ([0059]; FIG. 3: sound transducer device 200) comprising:
at least one micromachined ultrasonic transducer (MUT) ([0016]; [0018]; [0021]; [0059]; FIG. 3: micromechanical component 100);
processing circuitry electrically coupled to the at least one MUT ([0017]; [0028]-[0030]; [0059]: control circuit ASIC chip 12); and
an acoustic coupling medium formed on the at least one MUT and configured to acoustically couple the at least one MUT to an external application surface ([0009]; Fig’s. 3-4);
wherein the at least one MUT and the processing circuitry are arranged in an embedded wafer level ball grid array (eWLB) package ([0016]-[0017]; [0031]; Fig. 3);
HERZOG doesn’t explicitly teach a printed circuit board (PCB); wherein the ultrasonic device is assembled to the PCB, and wherein the acoustic coupling medium protrudes through a recess formed in the PCB.
FIFE teaches a printed circuit board (PCB) (PCB 160);
wherein the ultrasonic device is assembled to the PCB, and wherein the acoustic coupling medium protrudes through a recess formed in the PCB ([0073]: the interposer 806 and the PCB 160 are coupled together. The interposer 806 may be bonded to the PCB 160 using a surface-mount technology (SMT) process […] the solder bumps 162 on the upper surface of the PCB 160; Fig. 9; Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ultrasonic device disclosed in HERZOG with the printed circuit board taught in FIFE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a compact and manufacturable package for the ultrasonic sensor while facilitating electrical interconnection between the ultrasonic transducer elements and associated control circuity; thereby, improving integration of the ultrasonic device into the electronic system.
Referring to Claim 13, FIFE teaches the ultrasonic assembly of claim 12, wherein one or more interconnects of the eWLB package are electrically coupled to one or more conductive traces on the PCB ([0065]; [0080]; Claim 14; Claim 24).
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 12 and refers to a method of forming the ultrasonic assembly of Claim 12. Therefore Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 12 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 12 and refers to a method of forming an ultrasonic assembly, providing the ultrasonic device of Claim 12. Therefore Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 12 above.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 12 and refers to an ultrasonic assembly of Claim 12, and further comprising the WLB package is assembled to the PCB. Therefore Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 12 above.
Referring to Claim 18, (Withdrawn).
Referring to Claim 19, FIFE teaches the ultrasonic assembly of claim 17, further comprising:
processing circuitry assembled to the PCB and electrically coupled to the first MUT ([0073]; Claim 14); wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
control the first MUT to selectively emit ultrasonic waves, or process one or more output signals of the first MUT, the one or more output signals being generated by the first MUT based on received ultrasonic waves ([0080]).
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 12 and refers to a method of forming the ultrasonic assembly of Claim 12. Therefore Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 12 above.
Claim 21 is essentially the same as Claim 15 and refers to a method of forming the ultrasonic assembly of Claim 15. Therefore Claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 15 above.
Claim(s) 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERZOG in view of FIFE as applied to Claim(s) 15 above; and further in view of BERARD-ANDERSEN.
Referring to Claim 22, HERZOG, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein forming the acoustic coupling medium on the at least one MUT comprises dispensing a fluid or a gel as the acoustic coupling medium on the at least one MUT.
BERARD-ANDERSEN teaches forming the acoustic coupling medium on the at least one MUT comprises dispensing a fluid or a gel as the acoustic coupling medium on the at least one MUT (Abstract: sonolucent gel layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ultrasonic device disclosed in HERZOG with the acoustic coupling medium taught in BERARD-ANDERSEN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided acoustic coupling for the ultrasonic operation, thereby improving transmission of ultrasonic energy between the transducer and an external energy.
Referring to Claim 23, BERARD-ANDERSEN teaches the method of claim 22, wherein forming the acoustic coupling medium on the at least one MUT further comprises curing the fluid or the gel on the at least one MUT ([0023]; [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-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 Alsomire can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights