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 .
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Laugharn, JR, et al. (hereinafter Laugharn, US Pub. No. 2015/01619825828627).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Laugharn in Figs. 2 and 3 clearly show an ultrasonic (paragraph 0021, 0053, 0111) wave amplifier comprising a transducer (14) and a cavity structure (20 between dash lines Y
1
and Y2 and the forming of cavity 22) with an input opening, inner wall forming a cavity and an output opening, when a first axis (e.g., Z) is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first axis varies with a position on the first axis, and wherein the inner wall is continuously disposed from the input opening to the output opening, wherein a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall is smaller than a second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the first thickness is proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to the output opening.
Note, labels and lines are added to demonstrate how claims read on the structure of Laugharn.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image2.png
537
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-7 and 20, the claimed inner wall characteristics are clearly shown by Fig. 3 (also see Fig. 6)
Claims 1-7, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by Onozawa US Pub. No. 2008/0001003) .
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Onozawa in Fig. 8 clearly shows an acoustic amplifier comprising a Ultrasonics transducer ( 114, paragraph 0011) and a cavity structure (110) with an input opening, inner wall forming a cavity and an output opening, when a first axis is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first axis varies with a position on the first axis, and wherein the inner wall is continuously disposed from the input opening to the output opening, wherein a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall is smaller than a second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the first thickness is proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to the output opening.
Note, labels and lines are added to demonstrate how claims read on the structure of Onozawa.
PNG
media_image3.png
521
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2- 6 and 20, the claimed inner wall characteristics are clearly
shown by Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 17, Onozawa in Fig. 6 shows an ultrasonic wave cell array and a
processor 72.
Claims 1, 7-9, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by
Bhandari US Patent No. 12,652500).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Bhandari in Fig. 1 clearly shows an acoustic amplifier
comprising an ultrasonics transducer (132, paragraph 50)) and a cavity structure (See below
graph) with an input opening, inner wall forming a cavity and an output opening,
when a first axis is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the
output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross
section perpendicular to the first axis varies with a position on the first axis, and wherein the
inner wall is continuously disposed from the input opening to the output opening, wherein a
first thickness a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall is smaller than a
second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the first thickness is
proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to the output opening.
Note, labels and lines are added to demonstrate how claims read on the structure of Bhandari.
PNG
media_image4.png
451
918
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 1 also shows that the size of the input opening is greater than or
equal to a size of an output surface of the transducer.
Regarding claims 8- 9, Fig. 1 shows insertion structure.
PNG
media_image5.png
365
229
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15 and 16, the added first line (first axis) though the middle of the middle insertion structure, thus, will have same symmetry with respect to the first axis.
Claims 1-6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by Liang et
al. (here in after Liang, Pub. No. 2023/0300539)
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Liang, in Fig. 21 shows an acoustic amplifier
comprising an ultrasonics transducer (101, 103) and a cavity structure (840) with an input
opening, inner wall forming a cavity and an output opening, when a first axis is defined as a line
connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the
inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first
axis varies with a position on the first axis, and wherein the inner wall is continuously disposed
from the input opening to the output opening, wherein a first thickness a first thickness
between the inner wall and the outer wall is smaller than a second thickness between the inner
wall and the outer wall, and wherein the first thickness is proximate to the input opening and
the second thickness is proximate to the output opening.
Note, labels and lines are added to demonstrate how claims read on the structure of Liang.
PNG
media_image6.png
580
788
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2- 6 and 20, the claimed inner wall characteristics are clearly
shown by Fig. 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa et al. (Hereinafter Aizawa, US Pub. No. 20220063751) in view of Onozawa.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Aizawa in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 17 clearly shows an acoustic amplifier comprising a transducer (20 or 1, paragraph 0057) and a cavity structure (8) with an input opening, inner wall forming a cavity and an output opening, when a first axis is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first axis varies with a position on the first axis, and wherein the inner wall is continuously disposed from the input opening to the output opening, wherein a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall is smaller than a second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the first thickness is proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to the output opening.
Note, by way of example, labels and lines are added to demonstrate how claims read on the structure of Aizawa.
PNG
media_image7.png
451
533
media_image7.png
Greyscale
While Aizawa does not specific disclosed the transducer type, namely ultrasonic transducer, Onozawa teaches such (paragraph 0011). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate any well know type transducer such as ultrasonic transducer of Onozawa to the acoustic device of Aizawa for the purpose of generating ultrasonic waves. Furthermore, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted one known element for another would have been an obvious modification to Aizawa and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 20, the claimed inner wall characteristics are clearly
shown by Fig. 3 (also see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Aizawa in Fig. 4 shows an ultrasonic wave cell array and
Onozawa shows a processor 72 for controlling the array.
Claims 1, 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bicz (US Patent No. 5828627) in view of Aizawa et al. or Liang et a. or Laugharn .
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Bice in Fig. 1 clearly shows an ultrasonic wave amplifier comprising a transducer (1) and a cavity structure (2) with an input opening, inner wall forming a cavity and an output opening, when a first axis (A) is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first axis varies with a position on the first axis.
PNG
media_image8.png
445
261
media_image8.png
Greyscale
While Bicz does not teach wherein a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall is
smaller than a second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the
first thickness is proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to the
output opening, Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn teaches such waveguide or cavity structure (see
explanation as set forth in above 102 rejections. Based on this teaching, it would have been
obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the
waveguide of Bicz with the waveguide structure characteristics of Aizawa or Liang or
Laugharn for focusing or guiding the acoustic wave.
Regarding claim 7, Fig.1 shows wherein a size of the input opening is greater than or equal to a size of an output surface of the transducer (1).
Claims 1-10, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov (US2022/0240888) in view of Aizawa et al. or Liang et a. or Laugharn JR. et al..
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Abramov for example in Fig. 2 Case (B) clearly shows an ultrasonic wave (claim 1 indicates the sound wave includes ultrasonic) amplifier ((amplifying or boosting the sound, see title or abstract)) comprising a transducer (e.g., the speaker shown on the left side of Fig. 2 Case (B)) and a cavity structure ( Fig. 2 Case (B)2 ) with an input opening (2.B5), inner wall forming a cavity (2.B41-2.B45) and an output opening (2.B6), when a first axis (for the purpose of clarification, an axis X is added to illustrate how the cavity structure reads on Abramov, see below figure) is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first axis varies with a position on the first axis.
PNG
media_image9.png
187
517
media_image9.png
Greyscale
While Abramov does not teach wherein a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer
wall is smaller than a second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein
the first thickness is proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to
the output opening, Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn teaches such waveguide or cavity structure
(see explanation as set forth in above 102 rejections). Based on this teaching, it would have
been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the
waveguide of Abramov with the waveguide structure characteristics of Aizawa or Liang or
Laugharn for focusing or guiding the acoustic wave.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 20, the inner wall has a curved shape or Bezier curve (2.B43) and varies cross section depending on a distance from input opening (2.B5) in a direction of the first axis (added axis X).
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 2 Case (B) shows wherein a size of the input opening is greater than or equal to a size of an output surface of the transducer (speaker on the left the Fig. 2 Case (B) is less than the inlet 2.B5).
Regarding claim 8, Abramov in Fig. 1n (B) shows another embodiment of ultrasonic wave amplifier comprising a transducer (1N.B1) and a cavity structure (the horn waveguide) with an input opening and output opening where a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to an axis (added red line for illustration) varies (1N.B4) with a position of
the axis. Fig. 1n (B) further includes an insertion structure (1N.B2, 1N.B3).
PNG
media_image10.png
415
369
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Abramov further shows the insertion structure (1N.B2, INB3) comprises a first surface facing (outer surface of 1N.B3 for example) the output opening, and a second surface (inner surface of 1N.B3 for example) facing the first surface and the input opening.
Regarding claim 10, Abramov further discloses the second surface has a shape that amplifies ultrasonic waves through constructive interference, and the first surface has a shape that guides the amplified ultrasonic waves toward the output opening (paragraph 0116).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Fig. 1n (B) of Abramov shows the insertion structure has a shape having rotational symmetry of a predetermined angle with respect to the first axis, and the insertion structure and the inner wall have same symmetry with respect to the first axis.
Claims 1-7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Suzuki et al hereinafter Suzuki (US Pub No. 2025/0235895) in view of Aizawa et al or Liang et al. or Laugharn. JR. et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Suzuki for example in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6 or 9 clearly shows an ultrasonic wave amplifier comprising a transducer (ultrasonic wave generation source 11) and a cavity structure (12, 13 in Figs. 3, 4-6 and 9) with an input opening (bottom opening of waveguide 12), inner wall forming a cavity (12, 13) and an output opening (top part of waveguide 13), when a first axis (A1) is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first axis varies with a position on the first axis (for better illustration, one version of Figs. 3,4, 5, 6 or 9) is included below)
PNG
media_image11.png
640
613
media_image11.png
Greyscale
While Suzuki does not teach wherein a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer
wall is smaller than a second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein
the first thickness is proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to
the output opening, Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn teaches such waveguide or cavity structure
(see explanation as set forth in above 102 rejections). Based on this teaching, it would have
been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the
waveguide of Suzuki with the waveguide structure characteristics of Aizawa or Liang or
Laugharn for focusing or guiding the acoustic wave.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 20, the inner wall has a curved shape or Bezier curve (the inner wall of waveguide 12) and varies cross section depending on a distance from input opening in a direction of the first axis).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki shows wherein a size of the input opening is greater (e.g., Figs 3, 7 or 8) than or equal (e.g., Fig 5 or 9) to a size of an output surface of the transducer.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP7288562
(hereinafter JP ‘562) in view of Aizawa et al. or Liang et al. or Laugharn. JR. et al.
JP ‘562 discloses an electronic device comprising: an ultrasonic wave cell array (title, Figs 1, 2, 9), comprising a plurality of ultrasonic wave cells (Figs. 1, 2 or 9); and a processor (e.g., 500, Figs. 12, 14, or 18) configured to control the plurality of ultrasonic wave cells, wherein each of the plurality of ultrasonic wave cells comprises: a transducer (piezoelectric elements) configured to generate sound waves; and a cavity structure (126, 128 and 119) configured to amplify the sound waves generated by the transducer, the cavity structure comprises: an input opening through which the sound waves generated by the transducer are input; an inner wall forming a cavity in which the sound waves input through the input opening resonate; and an output opening through which the amplified sound waves are output, and when a first axis is defined as a line connecting a center of the input opening and a center of the output opening, a shape of the inner wall is formed such that an area of the cavity in a cross section perpendicular to the first axis varies (sections 126, 128 and 129 varies along the axis line), with a position on the first axis (Fig. 3 or Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image12.png
316
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
While JP’562 does not teach wherein a first thickness between the inner wall and the outer
wall is smaller than a second thickness between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein
the first thickness is proximate to the input opening and the second thickness is proximate to
the output opening, Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn teaches such waveguide or cavity structure
(see explanation as set forth in above 102 rejections). Based on this teaching, it would have
been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the
waveguide of JP’562 with the waveguide structure characteristics of Aizawa or Liang or
Laugharn for focusing or guiding the acoustic wave.
Regarding claim 18, JP ‘562 further comprising a display device (700) configured to display an image (e.g., displaying position information) according to image information, wherein the processor (500) is further configured to control (e.g., burst wave period, burst wave drive voltage, azimuth angle, etc.) the plurality of ultrasonic wave cells according to the image information of the display device (see Fig. 11 and pages 22 and 23 of the translation).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov (US2022/0240888) in view of Aizawa et al. or Liang et al. or Laugharn. JR et al. as applied above and further in view of Magalotti (US Pub No. 2008/0128199).
Regarding claim 11, while the combination of Abramov and Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn above does not disclose a distance between the first surface and the second surface decreases from a central portion to a periphery of the insertion structure, Magalotti teaches such (Fig. 2, Fig. 3). In addition, Magalotti in paragraph 0032 further discloses that the insertion structure can have different kind of shapes: for example the structure may be provided having a circular, elliptical or diamond shaped section. As Abramov in view of Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn and Magolotti are disclosed waveguide or cavity structure, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the insertion structure of Abramov in view of Aizawa or Liang or Laughran with the teaching of Magalotti in order to have desirable acoustic or wave propagating effect (0034 and 0035).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov (US2022/0240888) in view of Aizawa et al. or Liang et al. or Laugharn as applied above and further in view of Bicz (US Patent No. 5828627).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Aizawa and Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn does not disclose a constant section (first region). Abramov in other embodiments teaches the cavity structure can have various sections including a constant region (e.g., Figs. 1b, Fig. 1c). In addition, Bicz, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a cavity structure or wave guide where a section (3) of which is constant. Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the cavity structure of the combination of Abramove and Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn with a constant section in order to have desired gaussian intensity distribution (Col. 3, lines 9-16 and col. 1, line 65 6o column 2, line 63 of Bicz).
Regarding claim 13, Abramove in other embodiments teaches the cavity structure can have a second region with a cross section decreases toward the output opening. By the way of examples (see highlighted green section from the Figs of Abramove.
PNG
media_image13.png
383
560
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image14.png
446
493
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
653
479
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Based on these teaching, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application in order to yield desirable sound intensity or sound wave propagating behavior.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov (US2022/0240888) in view of Aizawa et al. or Liang et al. or Laugharn. JR. et al and Bicz (US Patent No. 5828627) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shie et al. hereinafter Shie (Pub No. US2024/0388824) or Clark et al hereinafter Clark (Pub. No. US2021/0127199.
The combination of Abramove in view of Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn and Bicz further includes a shape formed by rotating an exponential curve (Fig. 2 Case (B).
PNG
media_image16.png
273
501
media_image16.png
Greyscale
To further illustrate such well known waveguide or sound cavity structure, Chie and Clark are added to show such well known structure. See below from Chie and Clark.
Fig. 4 of Shie (See highlighted green section)
PNG
media_image17.png
636
426
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Clark (see highlighted green section):
PNG
media_image18.png
330
350
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Based on either teaching or Shie or Clark, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the cavity structure of the modified structure of Abramov in view of Aizawa or Liang or Laugharn and Bicz to have desirable sound intensity or sound wave propagating behavior.
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 JASON CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3022. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 8:00AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kindred Alford can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4037. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights