Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 11/13/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-10 remain pending.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 5-10) in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMITA (US-2021/0388179), hereinafter TOMITA, in view of UTSUMI (US 4,756,808) hereinafter UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL (US-2024/0285177), hereinafter RAJAGOPAL. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 5, TOMITA discloses A method for preparing matching layer materials of ultrasonic transducers {[abstract], [0064]}, comprising following steps:
S01, taking the following raw materials: phenolic resin, alumina, curing agent {[0038] note phenol resin, [0044] note alumina, [0060] note curing agent}.
TOMITA, however, is silent on the presence of carbon fiber. However, TOMITA discloses the presence of carbon and cellulose nanofiber but does not explicitly disclose carbon being of the shape of a fiber or nano-fiber {[0056]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have also used the carbon of TOMOTA in the from of fiber or nano-fiber since TOMITA, itself, discloses that cellulose fiber and carbon are interchangeable. Therefore, it is well within the skill of an artisan to have used the teaching of TOMITA and have chosen carbon fiber as another ingredient for the matching layer material.
Modified TOMITA, however, is silent on the presence of graphite in the mixture.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to acoustic matching section or layer, UTSUMI discloses the presence of graphite {[C3, L11], [C3, L40-43]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of UTSUMI in the method of TOMITA and have included graphite in the mixture of TOMITA. As disclosed by UTSUMI, the presence of graphite in the matching layer improves the performance as compared to conventional method {[C2, L58-61]}.
Combination of TOMITA and UTSUMI, however, is silent on the presence of a lubricant in the mixture.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to acoustic-impedance matching layer, RAJAGOPAL, discloses the presence of lubricant {[0085]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of RAJAGOPAL in the combination method of TOMITA and UTSUMI and included a lubricant in the material. As disclosed by RAJAGOPAL, lubricant can further function as acoustic matching material {[0085]}.
Combination of TOMITA, UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL, however, is silent on the parts of each component or the limitation of “15~34 parts of phenolic resin, 50~92 parts of alumina, 3-17 parts of graphite, 1-16 parts of carbon fiber, 1.5-5 parts of curing agent and 0.5-5 parts of lubricant”.
However, TOMITA discloses that the blending amounts are set according to the type of resin, the desired density, and the like {[0050], [0057]}. Therefore, TOMITA recognizes the blending ratios of the components as a result-effective variable that can be adjusted based on the type of resin used and the desired density.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the effect of blending ratios on desired properties) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the blending ratios which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the optimum blending ratios that in certain circumstances will lead to the levels that are claimed.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 5, modified TOMITA discloses S02, crushing the phenolic resin in the raw materials into powder, and then stirring and mixing evenly with other powdery raw materials; S03, putting the uniformly mixed powdery raw materials into an internal mixer for mixing {[0018] note powder form, [0066] the Examiner notes that since one component is powder, it would have been obvious for an artisan, at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have selected powder for other components as well so that the mixer can function properly; furthermore, it would have been obvious for an artisan, at the effective filing date of the instant invention to have initially crushed the resin in those cases where bigger chunks of resin were present; doing so further helps the mixer}.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 5, modified TOMITA discloses S04, cooling the powdery raw material after internal mixing, then placing the powdery raw material in a mold for thermoforming in a flat vulcanizing machine, and then obtaining a sheet material {[0072] note molding while heated thus shaping under heat or thermoforming, note that a layer of sheet is produced, thus the mold is flat, also note that since a cure agent is used the mold is a vulcanizing mold, note that obviously after mixing, the powder is cooled}.
Regarding the last limitation of claim 5 reciting “S05, grinding the sheet to a preset thickness to obtain a matching layer for ultrasonic transducers”, modified TOMITA is explicitly silent on grinding the sheet.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, and in those case where the formed layer is not an appropriate size, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have grinded the sheet to obtain a preset thickness for application in certain ultrasonic transducer. This grinding is known and well within the skill of an artisan.
Regarding claim 6 limitation of “wherein the phenolic resin in step S01 is thermoplastic phenolic resin”, TOMITA is explicitly silent on the resin being thermoplastic. However, there are only two choices for any resin, thermoplastic or thermoset. In this case, the method of claim 6 would have been the result of choosing from a very finite number of identified, predictable solutions (only two options) that have reasonable expectation of success and therefore obvious to try {see MPEP 2143 (I)(E)}. An artisan could have picked a thermoplastic phenolic resin since thermoplastic resins can further be used and remelted after their end of life.
The Examiner notes that TOMITA discloses the preferred form of the resin being thermoset {[0037]}, however, does not forbid an artisan to use a thermoplastic resin. Note that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments {see MPEP 2123 (II)}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMITA, UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of MACDOWELL (US-2025/0320337), hereinafter MACDOWELL.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of TOMITA, UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL discloses all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the specific type of curing agent.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to sheet molding, MACDOWELL discloses wherein the curing agent in step S01 is hexamethylenetetramine {[0029]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of MACDOWELL in the combination method of TOMITA, UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL and have used hexamethylenetetramine as the curing agent. As disclosed by MACDOWELL, hexamethylenetetramine is the most common curing agent for phenolic resin {[0029]}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMITA, UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of HAMADA (US-2022/0144981), hereinafter HAMADA.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of TOMITA, UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL discloses all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the specific type of lubricant.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to additives in polymeric powder, HAMADA discloses wherein calcium stearate or zinc stearate is used as the lubricant in step S01 {[0054]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of HAMADA in the combination method of TOMITA, UTSUMI, and RAJAGOPAL and have used zinc stearate as the lubricant. As disclosed by HAMADA, zinc stearate is a known lubricant in these applications {[0054]}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, TOMITA discloses that the alumina has to be in a balloon shape {[0044]}. Therefore, TOMITA cannot be modified to use a needle-like alumina.
Regarding claim 10, no prior art was found that details the thermoforming process as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748