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
In the amendments filed June 12th, 2026, the following has occurred; claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-18 have been amended; claims 19-21 have been cancelled, claims 22-24 are new; claims 1-18 and 22-24 remain pending in this application.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yim et al. (WO 2015152438 A1, “Yim”).
Regarding claim 1, discloses a matching layer (Fig. 1 (154)) for an ultrasound imaging head (Fig. 1 (100)), the matching layer (Fig. 1 (154)) comprising:
a translucent matrix (Fig. 1 (154a)) (Implicit, pg. 6, epoxy base material is bisphenol A type epoxy)(Bisphenol A epoxy resin is typically clear);
glass disposed (Fig. 1 (154b)) in the translucent matrix(Fig. 1 (154a));
and wherein a volume fraction of the glass in the translucent matrix is selected to provide a predetermined acoustic impedance(pg. 9, the volume fraction between the microglass bubbles and the total composition can be about 40-50% within the desired acoustic impedance range).
Regarding claim 2, Yim discloses matching layer of claim 1. Yim further discloses
the translucent matrix is transparent(Implicit, pg. 6, epoxy base material is bisphenol A type epoxy)(Bisphenol A epoxy resin is typically clear)
and the glass is transparent (Implicit, pg. 6, microglass bubble is a conventional soda-lime borosilicate glass)(Borosilicate glass is typically clear).
Regarding claim 3, Yim discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Yim further discloses
the translucent matrix comprises a polymer or an epoxy (pg. 4, low impedance matching layer formed of microglass bubbles being added to an epoxy base material as a filler)(pg. 6, epoxy base material is bisphenol A type epoxy).
Regarding claim 4, Yim discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Yim further discloses
the glass is a plurality of translucent particles, each particle of the plurality of translucent particles has a diameter in the range from 1 nm to 50 micron, inclusive (pg. 3, the filler may have a hollow predetermined shape having a density between 0.12 and 0.60 g/cc and a maximum length of 15-135 microns).
Regarding claim 5, Yim discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Yim further discloses
the volume fraction of the glass in the translucent matrix is in the range from 15% to 60%, inclusive(pg. 9, the volume fraction between the microglass bubbles and the total matching layer composition can be about 40-50% in order to achieve desired acoustic impedance range).
Regarding claim 6, Yim discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Yim further discloses
the matching layer has a thickness of ¼ of a predetermined wavelength of an ultrasound transducer (pg. 2, thickness of the matching layer should be ¼ of the wavelength to maximize the transfer efficiency of the ultrasonic waves).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 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 Yim in view of Palchetti et al. (US 20180290175 A1, “Palchetti”).
Regarding claim 7, Yim discloses the matching layer of claim 1. Yim fails to 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 a plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix.
Palchetti teaches
the matching layer(Fig. 6 (601) further comprises one or more additional layers(Fig. 6 (5) illustrates a back-matching layer), each of the one or more additional layers having: an additional translucent matrix([0026] the impedance of the back matching material can be finely controlled adopting air bubble/glass microspheres or thermo-expandable microcapsules particles dispersed in liquid polymers like epoxies, polyurethanes, acrylics);
and an additional plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix ([0026] the impedance of the back matching material can be finely controlled adopting air bubble/glass microspheres or thermo-expandable microcapsules particles dispersed in liquid polymers like epoxies, polyurethanes, acrylics).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the matching layer of Yim, to include the teachings of Palchetti, to yield an ultrasound probe having multiple acoustic impedance matching layers in order to increase the sensitivity of the transducer without significantly affecting the bandwidth or pulse duration by carefully selecting an appropriate acoustic impedance value. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (A).
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 Yim.
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 fails to teach
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.
Yim teaches
a matching layer (Fig. 1 (154)) (pg. 4, low impedance matching layer formed of microglass bubbles being added to an epoxy base material as a filler) disposed on the
a translucent matrix (Fig. 1 (154a));
and glass (Fig. 1 (154b)) disposed within the translucent matrix (Fig. 1 (154a)) (pg. 4, low impedance matching layer formed of microglass bubbles being added to an epoxy base material as a filler);
wherein a volume fraction of the plurality of translucent particles in the translucent matrix is selected to provide a predetermined acoustic impedance(pg. 9, the volume fraction between the microglass bubbles and the total composition can be about 40-50% within the desired acoustic impedance range).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the transparent ultrasound transducer of Yang, to include the teachings of Yim, in order to yield and ultrasonic measurement probe in which the acoustic impedance of the probe is matched to that of the soft tissue of a subject to be imaged while also maximizing the transfer efficiency of the ultrasonic waves being transmitted into the target tissue. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (A).
Regarding claim 9, Yang, as modified in view of Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yang further teaches 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 Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yim further teaches
the translucent matrix is transparent(Implicit, pg. 6, epoxy base material is bisphenol A type epoxy)(Bisphenol A epoxy resin is typically clear),
and the glass is transparent (Implicit, pg. 6, microglass bubble is a conventional soda-lime borosilicate glass)(Borosilicate glass is typically clear).
Regarding claim 11, Yang, as modified in view of Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yim further teaches
the translucent matrix comprises a polymer or an epoxy(pg. 4, low impedance matching layer formed of microglass bubbles being added to an epoxy base material as a filler).
Regarding claim 12, Yang, as modified in view of Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yim further teaches
each particle of the plurality of translucent particles has a diameter selected to provide the predetermined acoustic impedance(pg. 7, microglass bubbles are hollow have a cyclindrical or polyhedral predetermined shape with a density between 0.12 and 0.60 g/cc and a maximum length of 15-135 microns. Adding the microglass bubbles to the epoxy base material creates a low impedance matching layer).
Regarding claim 13, Yang, as modified in view of Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yim further teaches
The glass is a plurality of translucent particles, each particle of the plurality of particles has a diameter in the range from 1 nm to 50 pm, inclusive(Implicit, pg. 7, microglass bubbles are hollow have a cyclindrical or polyhedral predetermined shape with a density between 0.12 and 0.60 g/cc and a maximum length of 15-135 microns. Adding the microglass bubbles to the epoxy base material creates a low impedance matching layer)(the maximum length of a sphere is its diameter)
Regarding claim 14, Yang, as modified in view of Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yim further teaches
the volume fraction of the plurality of translucent particles in the translucent matrix is in the range from 15% to 60%(pg. 9, the volume fraction between the microglass bubbles and the total matching layer composition can be about 40-50% in order to achieve desired acoustic impedance range).
Regarding claim 15, Yang, as modified in view of Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yim further teaches
the matching layer has a thickness of ¼ of a wavelength of the piezoelectric element(pg. 2, thickness of the matching layer should be ¼ of the wavelength to maximize the transfer efficiency of the ultrasonic wave)(pg. 6, as the thickness of the matching layer is at least 36 microns, the minimum wavelength is four times the thickness).
Regarding claim 16, Yang, as modified in view of Yim teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yim further teaches
the predetermined acoustic impedance is between the acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric element and the acoustic impedance of a target tissue(pg. 9, microglass bubbles are added to epoxy base material as filler and are chosen to provide an acoustic impedance value that is substantially the same as that of soft human tissue).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yim and Palchetti.
Regarding claim 17, Yang, as modified in view of Osman teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yang, as modified in view of Yim fails to 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 a plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix.
Palchetti further teaches
the matching layer (Fig. 6 (601) further comprises one or more additional layers (Fig. 6 (5) illustrates a back-matching layer),
each of the one or more additional layers having: an additional translucent matrix([0026] the impedance of the back matching material can be finely controlled adopting air bubble/glass microspheres or thermo-expandable microcapsules particles dispersed in liquid polymers like epoxies, polyurethanes, acrylics);
and a plurality of translucent particles disposed in the translucent matrix ([0026] the impedance of the back matching material can be finely controlled adopting air bubble/glass microspheres or thermo-expandable microcapsules particles dispersed in liquid polymers like epoxies, polyurethanes, acrylics).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent ultrasound transducer of Yang, as modified in view of the teachings of Yim, to further include the teachings of Palchetti, to yield an ultrasound probe having multiple acoustic impedance matching layers in order to increase the sensitivity of the transducer without significantly affecting the bandwidth or pulse duration by carefully selecting an appropriate acoustic impedance value. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (A).
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yim and Hadimioglu et al. (US 20190302063 A1, “Hadimioglu”).
Regarding claim 22, Yang, as modified in view of Yim discloses the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 8. Yang, as modified in view of Yim fails to teach
a transparent backing layer formed of a transparent material with metal particles disposed in the transparent material.
Hadimioglu teaches
a transparent backing layer formed of a transparent material with metal particles disposed in the transparent material (Implicit, [0050] backing material can include acoustic scattering materials such as copper, indium-lead, titanium dioxide, and tungsten. Acoustic absorbing layers in the backing material may be epoxy, polyurethane, or silicone)(silicone is naturally colorless or transparent)).
Therefore it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transparent ultrasound transducer of Yang, as modified in view of the teachings of Yim, to further include the teachings of Hadimioglu, in order to yield a transparent ultrasound probe in which the acoustic energy generated by the actuator is more efficiently directed through the transducer head into an imaging medium as well as absorbing acoustic energy from returns that reduce reverberations and echoes which results in a cleaner signal. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (A).
Regarding claim 23, Yang, as modified in view of Yim and Hadimioglu teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 22. Hadimioglu further teaches
wherein the metal particles disposed in the transparent material are selected from at least one of tungsten or silver([0050] backing material can include acoustic scattering materials such as copper, indium-lead, titanium dioxide, and tungsten).
Regarding claim 24, Yang, as modified in view of Yim and Hadimioglu teaches the transparent ultrasound transducer of claim 22. Hadimioglu further teaches
wherein the metal particles are arranged in the transparent material to increase a mass of the transparent backing layer (Implicit, [0050] backing material can include acoustic scattering materials such as copper, indium-lead, titanium dioxide, and tungsten. Acoustic absorbing layers in the backing material may be epoxy, polyurethane, or silicone)(adding metal particles to a backing material implicitly would increase its mass)
Yang further teaches
and outside of a light path extending through the transparent backing layer from a light source([0158], the backing layer can be placed right underneath the piezoelectric polymer film Piezo-Polymer, and the laser beam propagating from the light diffuser can freely pass through the backing layer because the backing layer is also transparent).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed June 12th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 in view of Yim.
Additionally Applicant’s Remarks with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 in view of Yim in view of Palchetti (claim 7), Yang in view of Yim (claims 8-16), and Yang in view of Yim and Palchetti (claim 17).
On pg. 4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1, 8, and 18, that the new claims 22-24 are in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments, above, the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 18 are maintained under new grounds, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore new claims 22-24 are rejected in view of Yang in view of Yim and Hadimioglu.
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:
Wada et al. (US 20110062824 A1) which discloses an ultrasonic transducer with acoustic matching layer comprising particles
Chaggares et al. (US 20070205697 A1) which discloses an ultrasonic matching layer and associated transducer
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights