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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 18-30 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-22, 24, and 29-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, "the silicone-based material” should read –a silicone-based material--.
In claim 21, "claim 19” should read – claim 20--.
In claim 22, "pMUT” should read –pMUTs--.
In claim 24, "the first” should read –a first--.
In claim 29, "claim 23” should read –claim 27--. Otherwise, the claim duplicates claim 25.
In claim 30, "claim 23” should read –claim 27--. Otherwise, the claim duplicates claim 26.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12059300.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application correspond to the parent claim 1. In particular, claim 16 of the ‘300 patent recites the “handheld ultrasound imager comprising:
a transducer element comprising an array of piezoelectric Micromachined Ultrasound Transducers (pMUTs), wherein the transducer element is integrated onto an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) forming a transducer tile, and wherein a dam extends upwardly from the ASIC and along a side region of the transducer tile to form a boundary that defines a cavity between the transducer element and the ASIC to provide acoustic isolation of the transducer element from the ASIC, and
an overmolded multilayer lens, the multilayer lens comprising a plurality of layers comprising at least a first layer and a second layer, the first layer having an acoustic impedance higher than an acoustic impedance of the transducer element and lower than an acoustic impedance of the second layer, the acoustic impedance of the second layer being lower than an acoustic impedance of an imaging target, wherein the overmolded multilayer lens is configured to focus the imaging beams.”
Other clams correspond to each other as follows.
Claims 18-21 of the instant application correspond to claims 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12059300, respectively.
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wodnicki (US 20090182233), hereinafter Wodnicki, in view of Bowles et al (US 20150274515), hereinafter Bowles and further in view of Kiyose et al (US 20160058417), hereinafter, Kiyose.
Regarding claim 27, Wodnicki teaches an ultrasound transducer for a handheld ultrasound imager device (42) ("The transducer elements and circuit support cells of the ultrasound imaging system may be formed in a hand-held probe unit" [0018]; “the probe unit 42" [0057], Fig. 3) comprising a transducer element (a group of subelements, the “matrix switches 26 positioned in each subelement, the associated acoustical subelement 32” [0047], Fig. 2) comprising an array (5) (“Multiple acoustical subelements 32 in a two dimensional array 5 are positioned in Columns C." [0046], Fig. 2) of piezoelectric Micromachined Ultrasound Transducers (pMUTs) (“the present invention …may … be practiced in arrays that employ pMUTs … elements” [0034]), wherein the transducer element is coupled (“integrated electronics” [0081]) to an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (88) (100) (“FIG. 5C is a simplified partial cross sectional view of the subelement array 46 illustrating three acoustical subelements 32 formed on a substrate 4, and three associated ASIC cells 92 along a portion of an ASIC 88. Each acoustical subelement 32 is connected to an ASIC cell 92” [0073]. “The array 100 comprises a plurality of ASICs 102 arranged in horizontal ASIC rows AR and vertical ASIC columns AC. A plurality of subelements are arranged generally according to the two dimensional array 5 of acoustical subelements 32 shown in FIG. 2," [0082]) to form a transducer tile (hexagonal cells formed by “acoustical subelements 32” in Fig. 2).
Wodnicki does not explicitly teach that a cavity is formed under the transducer element to provide acoustic isolation of the transducer element from the ASIC.
However, in the microelectronic devices field of endeavor, Bowles discloses microelectronic packages having axially-partitioned hermetic cavities and methods for the fabrication thereof, which is analogous art. Bowles teaches that a cavity (112) is formed under the transducer element (104) to provide acoustic isolation of the transducer element from the ASIC (136) (“As was previously the case, MEMS transducer structures 104 and 108 are enclosed in fluidly-isolated hermetic cavities 112 and 114, respectively, which are bound around their respective perimeters by seal rings 116 and 118 and which contain disparate internal pressures… If desired, a recess 120 may be etched or otherwise formed in the backside of upper MEMS die … to enlarge the overall volume of hermetic cavity 112. Such a structural configuration may be especially beneficial when a relatively low pressure (e.g., a near vacuum pressure) is sealed within cavity 112, as may be the case when MEMS transducer structure 104 assumes the form of a gyroscope transducer structure.” [0038]; Fig. 9. Note that near vacuum pressure provides acoustic isolation of the transducer element 104).
Therefore, based on Bowles’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Wodnicki to have a cavity that is formed under the transducer element to provide acoustic isolation of the transducer element from the ASIC, as taught by Bowles, in order to improve device operation by reducing external influence on transducer elements.
Wodnicki modified by Bowles does not teach an overmolded lens comprising a first layer comprising a silicone- based material.
However, in the ultrasonic devices field of endeavor, Kiyose discloses ultrasonic device, method for producing ultrasonic device, ultrasonic probe, ultrasonic measurement apparatus, and electronic device, which is analogous art. Kiyose teaches that the ultrasound transducer (230) comprises an overmolded lens (152) comprising a first layer comprising a silicone- based material (“The acoustic lens 152 having the lens surface 152a and the recessed portion 152b is formed by packing and solidifying a transparent silicone resin, for example, into a mold." [0068]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, based on Kiyose’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Wodnicki and Bowles to have the ultrasound transducer that comprises an overmolded lens comprising a first layer comprising a silicone- based material, as taught by Kiyose, in order to facilitate high-resolution ultrasound imaging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 18-21 would be allowable assuming all outstanding nonstatutory double patenting issues are resolved. Claims 2, 4-9, 22-26, and 28-30 are allowable. However, appropriate correction is required for claims 20-22, 24, and 29-30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Wodnicki, Bowles, and Kiyose for claim 27.
Response to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection arguments on pages 5-8 of the REMARKS.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 18-30
The Applicant argues that “Applicant has amended Claim 1 to incorporate the allowable subject matter of Claim 17.” (Page 6). The Examiner agrees and therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Wodnicki, Bowles, and Kiyose for claim 27.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798