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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osman et al. ("A novel translucent ultrasound transducer approach for dual-modality ultrasound and photoacoustic imaging." Proc. of SPIE Vol. Vol. 11960., “Osman”).
Regarding claim 1, Osman discloses matching layer for an ultrasound imaging head, comprising: a translucent matrix; and a plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix([pg. 1], novel optically translucent acoustic matching layer was designed for use with transparent ultrasound transducers, comprising glass beads suspended in a transparent epoxy); and wherein a volume fraction of the plurality of translucent particles in the translucent matrix is selected to provide a predetermined acoustic impedance ([pg. 2], using the theoretical longitudinal speed of sound and density, acoustic impedance of various volume fraction of the matching layer were calculated. 40% volume fraction was chosen for the matching layer as it has an acoustic impedance which is closest to Z1, which is the value calculated to match the transducer to the tissue).
Regarding claim 2, Osman discloses matching layer of claim 1. Osman further discloses the translucent matrix is transparent and each particle of the plurality of translucent particles is transparent([pg. 1], novel optically translucent acoustic matching layer was designed for use with transparent ultrasound transducers, comprising glass beads suspended in a transparent epoxy)([pg. 3], 60 micron thick 40% volume fraction matching layer was fabricated by first molding the glass beads and transparent epoxy mixture).
Regarding claim 3, Osman discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Osman further discloses the translucent matrix comprises a polymer or an epoxy([pg. 1], novel optically translucent acoustic matching layer was designed for use with transparent ultrasound transducers, comprising glass beads suspended in a transparent epoxy)([pg. 3], 60 micron thick 40% volume fraction matching layer was fabricated by first molding the glass beads and epoxy mixture).
Regarding claim 4, Osman discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Osman further discloses each particle of the plurality of translucent particles has a diameter in the range from 1 nm to 50 micron, inclusive ([pg. 2], glass beads were sourced from Potters Industries LLC and had a max diameter of .0015” which is equal to 38.1 microns).
Regarding claim 5, Osman discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Osman further discloses the volume fraction of the plurality of translucent particles in the translucent matrix is in the range from 15% to 60%, inclusive([pg. 3], 60 micron thick 40% volume fraction matching layer was fabricated by first molding the glass beads and epoxy mixture)([pg. 1] results indicated optimal values were achieved at 40% volume fraction for the matching layer).
Regarding claim 6, Osman discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Osman further discloses the matching layer has a thickness of ¼ of a predetermined wavelength of an ultrasound transducer ([pg. 3], GB matching layer was fabricated having a 40% volume fraction glass beads and had a thickness of 60 microns (or ¼ wavelength).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osman in view of Cheng et al. (US 20240286172 A1, “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 7, Osman discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Osman may not explicitly disclose the matching layer further comprises one or more additional layers, each of the one or more additional layers having: an additional translucent matrix; andan additional plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix.
Cheng teaches the matching layer further comprises one or more additional layers, each of the one or more additional layers having: an additional translucent matrix ([0064]-[0065] matching layer may include one or more layers in the matching layer. matching layer may include one or more matching components such as in Fig. 1 (110-1)(110-2)(110-3)); and an additional plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix ([0089] first filler may adjust the first matching component and the second filler may adjust the second matching component)([0090] the first and second filler may have the same kinds of substance, and may be in different proportion to one another)([0105] inorganic non-metallic compound of the hollow structure may be hollow glass beads)([0108] material of the second filler may include the epoxy resin and the inorganic non-metallic compound)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as both the first and second filler may have the same kinds of substances, which may include glass beads and epoxy, both the first and second matching components may implicitly have translucent particles disposed in a translucent matrix).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photoacoustic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the matching layer of Osman, to include the multiple matching layers with embedded glass particles of Cheng with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving a desired acoustic impedance by adjusting the sound velocity and density of materials contributing to the composition of the filler material [0108].
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20180228464 A1, “Yang”) in view of Osman.
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses a transparent ultrasound transducer, comprising: a transparent piezoelectric element for receiving ultrasonic emission from a region of interest ([0099] scanning head (1110) includes a light diffuser (1112) and an optically-transparent array transducer (1111);
Yang may not explicitly disclose a matching layer disposed on the transparent piezoelectric element, the matching layer comprising: a translucent matrix; and a plurality of translucent particles disposed within the translucent matrix; and wherein a volume fraction of the plurality of translucent particles in the translucent matrix is selected to provide a predetermined acoustic impedance.
Osman teaches a matching layer disposed on the transparent piezoelectric element, the matching layer comprising: a translucent matrix; and a plurality of translucent particles disposed within the translucent matrix; and wherein a volume fraction of the plurality of translucent particles in the translucent matrix is selected to provide a predetermined acoustic impedance([pg. 1], novel optically translucent acoustic matching layer was designed for use with transparent ultrasound transducers, comprising glass beads suspended in a transparent epoxy)([pg. 2], using the theoretical longitudinal speed of sound and density, acoustic impedance of various volume fraction of the matching layer were calculated. 40% volume fraction was chosen for the matching layer as it has an acoustic impedance which is closest to Z1, which is the value calculated to match the transducer to the tissue).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photoacoustic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transducer of Yang, to include the transparent matching layer with embedded glass particles of Osman with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an acoustic impedance match between the transducer and the tissue to be imaged [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 9, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yang further discloses comprising a light source configured to illuminate the region of interest ([0091] probe includes a laser source (2000) to provide light energy needed for photoacoustic imaging), wherein the illumination is provided at least partially through the transparent piezoelectric element and the matching layer ([0118] prove may further include a matching layer (1117) which covers a portion of the outer surface of the transducer and is made of a material through which light can be transmitted).
Regarding claim 10, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Osman further teaches the translucent matrix is transparent, and the plurality of translucent particles is transparent([pg. 1], novel optically translucent acoustic matching layer was designed for use with transparent ultrasound transducers, comprising glass beads suspended in a transparent epoxy)([pg. 3], 60 micron thick 40% volume fraction matching layer was fabricated by first molding the glass beads and transparent epoxy mixture).
Regarding claim 11, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Osman further teaches the translucent matrix comprises a polymer or an epoxy([pg. 3], 60 micron thick 40% volume fraction matching layer was fabricated by first molding the glass beads and transparent epoxy mixture).
Regarding claim 12, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Osman further teaches each particle of the plurality of translucent particles has a diameter selected to provide the predetermined acoustic impedance([pg. 2], using the theoretical longitudinal speed of sound and density, acoustic impedance of various volume fraction of the matching layer were calculated. 40% volume fraction was chosen for the matching layer as it has an acoustic impedance which is closest to Z1, which is the value calculated to match the transducer to the tissue).
Regarding claim 13, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Osman further teaches each particle of the plurality of particles has a diameter in the range from 1 nm to 50 pm, inclusive([pg. 2], glass beads were sourced from Potters Industries LLC and had a max diameter of .0015” which is equal to 38.1 microns).
Regarding claim 14, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Osman further teaches the volume fraction of the plurality of translucent particles in the translucent matrix is in the range from 15% to 60%([pg. 3], 60 micron thick 40% volume fraction matching layer was fabricated by first molding the glass beads and epoxy mixture)([pg. 1] results indicated optimal values were achieved at 40% volume fraction for the matching layer).
Regarding claim 15, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Osman further teaches the matching layer has a thickness of ¼ of a wavelength of the piezoelectric element([pg. 3], GB matching layer was fabricated having a 40% volume fraction glass beads and had a thickness of 60 microns (or ¼ wavelength)..
Regarding claim 16, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Osman further teaches the predetermined acoustic impedance is between the acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric element and the acoustic impedance of a target tissue([pg. 2], using the theoretical longitudinal speed of sound and density, acoustic impedance of various volume fraction of the matching layer were calculated. 40% volume fraction was chosen for the matching layer as it has an acoustic impedance which is closest to Z1, which is the value calculated to match the transducer to the tissue).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Osman and Cheng.
Regarding claim 17, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yang, as modified in view of Osman may not explicitly teach the matching layer further comprises one or more additional layers, each of the one or more additional layers having: an additional translucent matrix; and an additional plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix.
Chen teaches the matching layer further comprises one or more additional layers ([0064]-[0065] matching layer may include one or more layers in the matching layer. matching layer may include one or more matching components such as in Fig. 1 (110-1)(110-2)(110-3)); each of the one or more additional layers having: an additional translucent matrix; and an additional plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix. ([0089] first filler may adjust the first matching component and the second filler may adjust the second matching component)([0090] the first and second filler may have the same kinds of substance, and may be in different proportion to one another)([0105] inorganic non-metallic compound of the hollow structure may be hollow glass beads)([0108] material of the second filler may include the epoxy resin and the inorganic non-metallic compound)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as both the first and second filler may have the same kinds of substances, which may include glass beads and epoxy, both the first and second matching components may implicitly have translucent particles disposed in a translucent matrix)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photoacoustic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparent ultrasound transducer of Yang, as modified in view of Osman, to include the multiple matching layers with embedded glass particles of Cheng with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving a desired acoustic impedance by adjusting the sound velocity and density of materials contributing to the composition of the filler material [0108]
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Palchetti et al. (US 20180290175 A1, “Palchetti”) which discloses an ultrasonic transducer having a matching layer comprised of an epoxy mixed with glass microspheres
Chen et al. ("A transparent ultrasound array for real-time optical, ultrasound, and photoacoustic imaging." BME frontiers 2022 (2022): 9871098. “Chen”) which discloses an optically transparent transducer for photoacoustic imaging with a transparent matching layer having glass beads intermixed with an epoxy
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645