DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/05/2026 has been entered.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 21-35 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 21, 24-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaraju (US 20190316958 A1) in view of Aabid "A Systematic Review of Piezoelectric Materials and Energy Harvesters for Industrial Applications" (2021).
Regarding claim 21, Akkaraju teaches a substrate with a cavity [Fig4B has Substrate #402 and cavity #404];
a membrane layer suspended from the substate and above the cavity [membrane layer #406 in Fig 4B suspended from substrate above cavity];
and wherein each MUT comprises a …..of piezoelectric layers that are each disposed between respective electrode layers to form an alternating layered structure for performing an ultrasound imaging procedure [Bottom electrode #408 in Fig 4B with Piezoelectric layer #410 between first electrode #408 and second electrode #412; Title, Fig 1 and Background shows ultrasonic use though this is an intended use and does not contain much patentable weight];
and wherein each MUT is configured to vibrate, at a vibrational resonance frequency, in a vibrational mode having a plurality of nodal points and a plurality of anti-nodal points arranged along an axis, an areal density distribution of a top electrode layer of each MUT along the axis having a plurality of local maxima, locations of the plurality of local maxima coinciding with locations of the plurality of anti-nodal points.[Abstract; See also fig 5c and 5e which are identical to applicants own 6b and 6c which applicant has cited as support]
Akkaraju does not explicitly teach and a plurality of piezoelectric layers.
Aabid teaches a plurality of piezoelectric layers [Abstract; Fig 6 shows a stacked layer of piezoelectric layers and electrodes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MUT in Akkaraju with the stacked layers in Aabid to have multiple piezoelectric and electrode layers. Doing so would have more elements and therefore more pressure waves.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more piezoelectric layers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 27, Akkaraju teaches a substrate with a cavity [Fig4B has Substrate #402 and cavity #404];
a membrane layer suspended from the substate and above the cavity [membrane layer #406 in Fig 4B suspended from substrate above cavity];
and wherein each MUT comprises a ….. of piezoelectric layers that are each disposed between respective electrode layers to form an alternating layered structure for performing an ultrasound imaging procedure, the MUT having a symmetric shape when seen in top view. [Bottom electrode #408 in Fig 4B with Piezoelectric layer #410 between first electrode #408 and second electrode #412. Title, Fig 1 and Background shows ultrasonic use though this is an intended use and does not contain much patentable weight; Fig 4A shows it is symmetric ];
and wherein each MUT is configured to vibrate, at a vibrational resonance frequency, in a vibrational mode having a plurality of nodal points and a plurality of anti-nodal points arranged along an axis,[Abstract; See also fig 5c and 5e which are identical to applicants own 6b and 6c which applicant has cited as support]
Akkaraju does not explicitly teach and a plurality of piezoelectric layers.
Aabid teaches a plurality of piezoelectric layers [Abstract; Fig 6 shows a stacked layer of piezoelectric layers and electrodes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MUT in Akkaraju with the stacked layers in Aabid to have multiple piezoelectric and electrode layers. Doing so would have more elements and therefore more pressure waves.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more piezoelectric layers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 32, Akkaraju teaches a substrate with a cavity [Fig4B has Substrate #402 and cavity #404];
a membrane layer suspended from the substate and above the cavity [membrane layer #406 in Fig 4B suspended from substrate above cavity];
a first electrode disposed on the membrane layer; [Bottom electrode #408 in Fig 4B]
a first piezoelectric layer disposed on the first electrode; [Piezoelectric layer #410 between first electrode #408 and second electrode #412;]
a second electrode disposed on the first piezoelectric layer; [Second electrode #412;]…..
wherein the MUT is configured to vibrate, at a vibrational resonance frequency, in a vibrational mode having a plurality of nodal points and a plurality of anti-nodal points arranged along an axis.[Abstract; See also fig 5c and 5e which are identical to applicants own 6b and 6c which applicant has cited as support]
Akkaraju does not explicitly teach a second piezoelectric layer disposed on the second electrode;
and a third electrode disposed on the second piezoelectric layer,
Aabid teaches a second piezoelectric layer disposed on the second electrode; [Abstract; Fig 6 shows a stacked layer of piezoelectric layers and electrodes]
and a third electrode disposed on the second piezoelectric layer,[Abstract; Fig 6 shows a stacked layer of piezoelectric layers and electrodes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MUT in Akkaraju with the stacked layers in Aabid to have multiple piezoelectric and electrode layers. Doing so would have more elements and therefore more pressure waves.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more piezoelectric layers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 24, Akkaraju, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein each MUT comprises at least two piezoelectric layers and at least three electrode layers.
Aabid teaches wherein each MUT comprises at least two piezoelectric layers and at least three electrode layers[Abstract; Fig 6 shows a stacked layer of piezoelectric layers and electrodes that read on the claim]
Regarding claims 25 and 29, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches, wherein each MUT comprises a rounded shape when seen in top view[Fig 4A has a rounded shape]
Regarding claims 26 and 30, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches, wherein each MUT comprises a circular electrode structure when seen in top view[0045 has electrode in shape of a circle]
Regarding claim 28, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches…..a circular electrode structure[0045 has electrode in shape of a circle]
Akkaraju, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein each MUT comprises at least two piezoelectric layers and at least three electrode layers.
Aabid teaches wherein each MUT comprises at least two piezoelectric layers and at least three electrode layers[Abstract; Fig 6 shows a stacked layer of piezoelectric layers and electrodes that read on the claim]
Regarding claim 33, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches wherein the wherein an areal density distribution of the third electrode along the axis has a plurality of local maxima, locations of the plurality of local maxima coinciding with locations of the plurality of anti-nodal points.[Abstract; See also fig 5c and 5e which are identical to applicants own 6b and 6c which applicant has cited as support]
Regarding claim 34, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches wherein the vibrational mode is a mode in which the MUT has two nodal points and three anti-nodal points along the axis.[ Abstract; See also fig 5c and 5e which are identical to applicants own 6b and 6c which applicant has cited as support. See also 0050]
Regarding claim 35, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches wherein the vibrational mode is a mode in which the MUT has four nodal points and five anti-nodal points along the axis.[Abstract; See also fig 5c and 5e which are identical to applicants own 6b and 6c which applicant has cited as support. See also 0051]
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaraju (US 20190316958 A1) in view of Aabid" A Systematic Review of Piezoelectric Materials and Energy Harvesters for Industrial Applications " (2021) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jennings (US 2021/0278927 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches wherein when seen in top view, the MUT has an elongate shape and opposing sides that are…..[Figs 8B, 9B and 10B have top view with inbetween parts being smaller width meaning concave]
Akkaraju does not explicitly state a concave shape. [Though Figs 8B, 9B and 10B have top view with inbetween parts being smaller width meaning concave]
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Akkaraju to be concave, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific shape yields any previously unexpected results.
Jennings teaches that a concave shape [0074; Fig 7C has a concave shape].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MUT in Akkaraju with the sensor in Jennings to create a concave shape. Doing so would be alternative embodiments to change the properties of the sensor.
Regarding claims 23, Akkaraju, as modified, teaches wherein when seen in top view, the MUT has an elongate shape and opposing sides that are ….. [Fig 4B, 6B is top view and side appear to be convex]
Akkaraju does not explicitly state a convex shape [Fig 4B, 6B is top view and side appear to be convex]
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Akkaraju to be convex, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed shape yields any previously unexpected results.
Jennings teaches that a convex shape [0074; Fig 7B has a convex shape].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MUT in Akkaraju with the sensor in Jennings to create a convex shape. Doing so would be alternative embodiments to change the properties of the sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants argument concerning Nodes, it is pointed out that the primary reference of Akkaraju clearly states identical language and figures showing the claimed limitations.
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). Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly. It is the teachings of Akkaraju and Aabid and Jennings as a whole that renders the claim obvious. Applicant is claiming multiple layers and electrodes which is what the references teach.
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
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
Prosecution Insights