Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/739,733

COMPOSITION FOR ACOUSTIC LENS, ACOUSTIC LENS, ACOUSTIC WAVE PROBE, ULTRASOUND PROBE, ACOUSTIC WAVE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, PHOTOACOUSTIC WAVE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, ULTRASONIC ENDOSCOPE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ACOUSTIC WAVE PROBE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 11, 2024
Examiner
LUKS, JEREMY AUSTIN
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
846 granted / 1149 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1186
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1149 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai (2020/0206393). With respect to claim 1, Nakai teaches a composition for an acoustic lens (see title, [0050]), comprising the following components (a) to (c): (a) a linear polysiloxane having a vinyl group ([0020], [0070]); (b) a linear polysiloxane having two or more Si-H groups in a molecular chain ([0021], [0071]); and (c) surface-treated silica particles ([0023], [0073] – referred to as ingredient #D in Nakai), wherein, in a particle diameter distribution of the component (c) obtained by a scanning transmission electron microscope, it is obvious that one or more maximal peaks are detected in a range in which a peak top is 16 nm or more and less than 100 nm, and one or more maximal peaks are detected in a range in which a peak top is 8 nm or more and less than 16 nm ([0023], [0149]-[0151]). It is noted that the average primary particle diameter of Nakai is more than 16 nm and less than 100nm, and in a scenario where the average particle diameter is close to 16 nm, such as 16.1 nm or even 17nm, for example, it is obvious that there will be particles within the group that are both slightly less than 16nm and slightly more than 16 nm within cumulative distribution as discussed in [0151]. Because the maximal peak of a given particle is determined by its diameter, one of ordinary skill would recognize that an average particle diameter close to the “more than 16nm” average will yield at least one particle with a maximal peak in a range in which a peak top is 16 nm or more and less than 100 nm, and at least one particle with a maximal peak are detected in a range in which a peak top is 8 nm or more and less than 16 nm. Further, regarding the maximal peak size ranges, it is noted that since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Still further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). With respect to claim 2, Nakai teaches wherein a shape of the component (c) (defined by ingredient #D) is a true sphere shape ([0034]). With respect to claim 3, Nakai teaches wherein a content of the component (c) (defined by ingredient #D) is 25 to 70 parts by mass in 100 parts by mass of a total content of the components (a) to (c) ([0024], [0073]). With respect to claim 4, Nakai teaches wherein a content of the component (a) is 25 to 70 parts by mass and a content of the component (b) is 0.3 to 3 parts by mass, in 100 parts by mass of a total content of the components (a) to (c) ([0026], [0076]). With respect to claim 5, Nakai teaches further comprising: (d) a polysiloxane resin (defined by ingredient #C – [0022], [0072]). With respect to claim 6, Nakai teaches wherein a content of the component (d) defined by ingredient #C) is 5 to 20 parts by mass in 100 parts by mass of a total content of the components (a) to (d) ([0026], [0076]). With respect to claim 7, Nakai teaches wherein a content of the component (c) (defined by ingredient #D) is 25 to 70 parts by mass in 100 parts by mass of a total content of the components (a) to (d) ([0024], [0073]). With respect to claim 8, Nakai teaches wherein a content of the component (a) is 20 to 65 parts by mass and a content of the component (b) is 0.3 to 3 parts by mass, in 100 parts by mass of a total content of the components (a) to (d) ([0026], [0076]). With respect to claim 9, Nakai teaches wherein the surface treatment of the component (c) (defined by ingredient #D) is a surface treatment with a silane compound ([0028]). With respect to claim 10, Nakai teaches the composition of claim 1. Nakai further teaches wherein the surface treatment of the component (c) (defined by ingredient #D) is a surface treatment with a silane compound ([0028]). Nakai fails to teach wherein the silane compound is an aromatic silane compound. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the surface treatment of the component (c) is a surface treatment with a silane compound, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, it would have been well known and obvious one or ordinary skill so to use an aromatic silane compound. With respect to claim 11, Nakai teaches wherein a methanol hydrophobicity degree of the component (c) (defined by ingredient #D) is 40% to 80% by mass ([0032], [0172]). With respect to claim 12, Nakai teaches wherein the component (a) has a phenyl group([0036], [0087]-[088]). With respect to claim 13, Nakai teaches wherein a weight-average molecular weight of the component (a) is 20,000 to 200,000 ([0038], [0091]). With respect to claim 14, Nakai teaches wherein a weight-average molecular weight of the component (a) is 40,000 to 150,000 ([0040], [0091]). With respect to claim 15, Nakai teaches wherein the component (d) (defined by ingredient #C) is a polysiloxane resin which includes an R3SiO1/2 unit and an SiO4/2 unit and has at least two vinyl groups in one molecule, and a molar ratio of the R3SiO1/2 unit to the SiO4/2 unit is 0.6 to 1.2, provided that R represents a monovalent hydrocarbon group ([0134]; page 17, claim 11). With respect to claim 16, Nakai teaches wherein the component (d) (defined by ingredient #C) consists of the R3SiO1/2 unit and the SiO4/2 unit ([0042]). With respect to claim 17, Nakai teaches further comprising: at least one of platinum or a platinum compound in an amount of 0.00001 to 0.01 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a total content of the components (a) to (c) ([0048]). With respect to claim 18, Nakai teaches further comprising: at least one of platinum or a platinum compound in an amount of 0.00001 to 0.01 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a total content of the components (a) to (d) ([0048]). With respect to claim 19, Nakai teaches an acoustic lens obtained by curing the composition for an acoustic lens according to claim 1 ([0014]-[0015]). With respect to claim 20, Nakai teaches an acoustic wave probe comprising: the acoustic lens according to claim 19([0014]-[0016]). With respect to claim 21, Nakai teaches an ultrasound probe comprising: the acoustic lens according to claim 19 ([0014]-[0016]). With respect to claim 22, Nakai teaches an acoustic wave measurement apparatus comprising: the acoustic wave probe according to claim 20 ([0014]-[0016]). With respect to claim 23, Nakai teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: the acoustic wave probe according to claim 20 ([0014]-[0016]). With respect to claim 24, Nakai teaches a photoacoustic wave measurement apparatus comprising: the acoustic lens according to claim 19 ([0014]-[0016]). With respect to claim 25, Nakai teaches an ultrasonic endoscope comprising: the acoustic lens according to claim 19 ([0014]-[0016]). With respect to claim 26, Nakai teaches a method for manufacturing an acoustic wave probe, comprising: forming an acoustic lens using the composition for an acoustic lens according to claim 1 ([0014]-[0016]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00). 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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. /JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 11, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597408
SOUND ABSORBING DEVICES FOR PANELS WITH OPENINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587048
ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583284
VENTILATION DEVICE FOR A VENTILATION, HEATING AND/OR AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571603
SILENCER FOR MULTI BARREL WEAPON SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559249
ENGINE EXHAUST CENTER BODY WITH ACOUSTIC ATTENUATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+21.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1149 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month