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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 18/679296 is responsive to communications filed on May 30th, 2024. Currently, claims 1-22 are pending are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 is/are objected to because the term “the elongate shape” does not have its antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-13 of copending Application No 17/395171. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Conflicting Co-pending Application 17/395171
Instant Application—18/679296
1. (Currently Amended) A transducer array, comprising: a plurality of micromachined ultrasonic transducers (MUTs) in a staggered an asymmetric arrangement, wherein a perimeter of each micromachined ultrasonic transducer (MUT) comprises at least one straight edge, and wherein the straight edges of the MUTs are oriented at a plurality of orientations relative to a vertical axis.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 12-13
1.A transducer array, comprising a plurality of elongate micromachined ultrasonic transducers (MUTs) that are arranged in a staggered arrangement and have longitudinal axes that are oriented at a plurality of orientations relative to each other.
20. A transducer array, comprising a plurality of elongate micromachined ultrasonic transducers (MUTs) that each have a plurality of straight edges that are oriented at a plurality of orientations relative to each other.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-13 of co-pending application. That is, claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 20 are anticipated by claims 2-3, 5-6, 12-13 of co-pending application.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-13 of copending Application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-8, 13-19, 21-22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
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 (too 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.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487