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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Currently claims 1-23 are pending.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga (US20090062656A1) in view of Seto (US20080021324A1) and Wildes et al., (US5897501A)
Regarding claim 1, Hyuga teaches an ultrasound probe in which a plurality of piezoelectric elements are arranged in an array along an azimuth direction on a backing material (fig. 1 the probe has a plurality of piezoelectric vibrators 2 along an azimuth direction on backing material 1 (x-axis)),
wherein each of the piezoelectric elements includes a plurality of divisional element portions, which are four or more and ten or less divisional element portions, in an elevation direction (see annotated fig. 6B, the piezoelectric elements are divided in an elevation direction (Y direction)); each of the plurality of piezoelectric elements consists of a laminate in which a signal electrode layer, a piezoelectric portion, and a ground electrode layer are laminated in turn on a surface of the backing material (fig. 2 individual electrode 2a piezoelectric material 2b, and the commend electrode 2 c (2 c is connected to the ground potential) are laminated on the backing material 1 [0042]),
a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of an aspect ratio represented by a ratio of a thickness with respect to a length of each of the plurality of divisional element portions in the elevation direction is within a range of 10% of an average value of aspect ratios of the plurality of divisional element portions (fig. 2 the width of each piezoelectrical material 2b is 100 μm and the length (Y-axis) is 5000 μm, so each material has the same aspect ratio, and would be within a 10% range of the average value of the aspect ratios since the difference would be 0% [0042]); and
However, Hyuga fails to teach an arrangement pitch of the plurality of divisional element portions in the elevation direction is larger than a wavelength of an ultrasound wave determined by a center frequency of the ultrasound probe.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Seto teaches an arrangement pitch of the plurality of divisional element portions in the elevation direction is larger than a wavelength of an ultrasound wave determined by a center frequency of the ultrasound probe ([0011] the arrangement pitch of the elements in the elevation direction is more than the wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of Hyuga with the arrangement pitch of Seto, as this would allow for a drastically reduced number of elements and wiring and would lead to reduction in costs (see Seto [0011]).
However the combination of references are silent regarding in each of the piezoelectric elements, the signal electrode layers of two outermost divisional element portions that are disposed at opposite ends in the plurality of divisional element portion arrayed in the single row in the elevation direction are electrically connected to each other by a first conductive pattern (figs. 4 A-H are connected by a conductive pattern col. 6 lines 64- col. 7 lines 2); and the signal electrode layers of at least two adjacent inner divisional element portions that are disposed between the two outermost divisional element portions in the plurality of divisional element portions arrayed in the single row in the elevation direction are electrically connected to teach other by a second conductive pattern different from the first conductive pattern (fig. 4 D and E are connected by a conductive pattern different than the one connecting A and H col. 6 lines 64- col. 7 lines 2), wherein the two outermost divisional element portions in the plurality of divisional element portions arrayed in the single row in the elevation direction are simultaneously driven by a first common drive voltage via the first conductive pattern (figs. 4-5 shows the outer most transducers A and H coupled through a common path, and the applied voltages would be applied to both transducers, as the transducers are simultaneously coupled to the channels col.6 lines 22-24 and col. 6 lines 54-col. 7 line17), and wherein the at least two adjacent inner divisional element portions in the plurality of divisional element portions arrayed in the single row in the elevation direction are simultaneously driven by a second common drive voltage via the second conductive pattern (figs. 4-5 shows the outer most transducers A and H coupled through a common path, and the applied voltages would be applied to both transducers, as the transducers are simultaneously coupled to the channels col.6 lines 22-24 and col. 6 lines 54-col. 7 line17),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rows of modified Hyuga with the paired row wiring and multiplexer configuration of Wildes, as this would result in economy of cost and size (see Wilde col. 3 lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 21, mdoifeid Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein divisional element portions are simultaneously driven with adjustment of delay amounts with respect to other divisional element portions to make a depth of a transmission focal point of an ultrasound beam electronically variable on a tomographic plane along the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Seto teaches wherein the divisional element portions are simultaneously driven with adjustment of delay amounts with respect to the other divisional element portions to make a depth of a transmission focal point of an ultrasound beam electronically variable on a tomographic plane along the elevation direction ([0065] the control unit 201 can set timing and delay times to be supplied to the plural element groups so that its optimum; [0018] the aperture diameter is variable in the elevation direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the inner and outer divisional elements of Hyuga with the arrangement pitch of Seto, as this would allow for a drastically reduced number of elements and wiring and would lead to reduction in costs (see Seto [0011]). One of ordinary skill would understand this combination of references would result in the reading of the limitation “wherein the at least two adjacent inner divisional element portions are simultaneously driven with adjustment of delay amounts with respect to the two outermost divisional element portions to make a depth of a transmission focal point of an ultrasound beam electronically variable on a tomographic plane along the elevation direction.”
Regarding claim 22, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ultrasound beam is not steered in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Seto teaches wherein the ultrasound beam is not steered in the elevation direction ([0018] the ultrasonic beam is not deflectable in the elevation direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of Hyuga with the arrangement pitch of Seto, as this would allow for a drastically reduced number of elements and wiring and would lead to reduction in costs (see Seto [0011]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto and Wildes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isono (US20130085396A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a wiring board having the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern is disposed between the plurality of piezoelectric elements and the backing material, and each of the signal electrode layers and the ground electrode layers of the plurality of piezoelectric elements is led out via the conductive pattern of the wiring board.
However in the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Isono teaches wherein a wiring board having the first conductive pattern and second conductive pattern is disposed between the plurality of piezoelectric elements and the backing material (fig. 3 flexible substrate 11 has copper layers is between the piezoelectric portions 14 and backing layer 10 [0033]; fig.4 shows that there are multiple conductive patterns as part of flexible substrate 11), and each of the signal electrode layers of the plurality of piezoelectric elements is led out via the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern of the wiring board ([0033] the signal electrode 16 are connected to the flexible substrate 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the probe of modified Hyuga with the flexible substrate of Isono, as both invention relate to ultrasonic probes and would yield the predictable result of a probe comprising a flexible substrate for electrical connections between components of the probe to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a combination, and the results of the probe of modified Hyuga having a flexible substrate for electrical connections are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 2, wherein Hyuga further teaches wherein each of the plurality of divisional element portions is split in the elevation direction via a split groove extending from the ground electrode layer to the signal electrode layer (fig. 2 the piezoelectric vibrators have split grooves that are filled with resins 3 ([0041]) between element that start from the common electrode 2c that is connected to ground and the individual electrodes 21 [0042]).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto, Wildes, and Isono as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hanafy et al., (US5894646A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the split groove extends into the wiring board.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Hanafy teaches wherein the split groove extends into the wiring board (fig. 3 kerf 28 extends into the flex circuit 12 col. 5 line 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of extending the groove to the wiring board as taught by Hanafy to the grooves of modified Hyuga, as both inventions relate to ultrasound transducers with space between the transducer elements, and would yield the predictable result of a probe with grooves that extend to the flex printed board of the probe to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such an application, and the results modified Hyuga having a groove that extends to the wiring board are reasonably predictable. This would allow for complete electrical separation and reduced lateral acoustic crosstalk.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 3, wherein Hyuga further teaches wherein an acoustic matching layer is laminated on the ground electrode layers of the plurality of piezoelectric elements (fig. 2 acoustic matching layers 4b/4a are on common electrode 2c (which is connected to ground) [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 4, wherein Hyuga further teaches wherein an acoustic matching layer is laminated on the ground electrode layers of the plurality of piezoelectric elements (fig. 2 acoustic matching layers 4b/4a are on common electrode 2c (which is connected to ground) [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 5, wherein the split groove extends into the acoustic matching layer.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Hanafy teaches wherein the split groove extends into the acoustic matching layer (fig. 3 kerf 28 extends into acoustic matching layer 24 col. 5 line 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of extending the groove to the acoustic matching layer as taught by Hanafy to the grooves of modified Hyuga, as both inventions relate to ultrasound transducers with space between the transducer elements, and would yield the predictable result of a probe with grooves that extend to the acoustic matching layer of the probe to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such an application, and the results modified Hyuga having a groove that extends to the acoustic matching layer are reasonably predictable. This would allow for complete electrical separation and reduced lateral acoustic crosstalk.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 6, wherein the split groove extends into the acoustic matching layer.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Hanafy teaches wherein the split groove extends into the acoustic matching layer (fig. 3 kerf 28 extends into acoustic matching layer 24 col. 5 line 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of extending the groove to the acoustic matching layer as taught by Hanafy to the grooves of modified Hyuga, as both inventions relate to ultrasound transducers with space between the transducer elements, and would yield the predictable result of a probe with grooves that extend to the acoustic matching layer of the probe to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such an application, and the results modified Hyuga having a groove that extends to the acoustic matching layer are reasonably predictable. This would allow for complete electrical separation and reduced lateral acoustic crosstalk.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto, Wildes, and Isono as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jiang et al., (US 20090108708 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 3, but is silent regarding wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction (fig. 1 kerfs 14 have a width between 3 μm to about 30 μm, and would include those in the elevation direction [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 9, but is silent regarding wherein the split groove is filled with a filler.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the split groove is filled with a filler. (fig. 1 kerfs 14 are filled with epoxy 12 [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the filled kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Claims 10-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto, Wildes, Isono, and Hanafy as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jiang.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 4, but is silent regarding wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction (fig. 1 kerfs 14 have a width between 3 μm to about 30 μm, and would include those in the elevation direction [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 5, but is silent regarding wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction (fig. 1 kerfs 14 have a width between 3 μm to about 30 μm, and would include those in the elevation direction [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 6, but is silent regarding wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction (fig. 1 kerfs 14 have a width between 3 μm to about 30 μm, and would include those in the elevation direction [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 7, but is silent regarding wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction (fig. 1 kerfs 14 have a width between 3 μm to about 30 μm, and would include those in the elevation direction [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 8, but is silent regarding wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the split groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction (fig. 1 kerfs 14 have a width between 3 μm to about 30 μm, and would include those in the elevation direction [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Claims 16-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto, Wildes, and Isono as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Spigelmyer et al., (US11756520B2)
Regarding claim 16, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 2, but are silent regarding wherein the at least two divisional element portions are split in the elevation direction in terms of mechanical vibration while each being connected to a part of the piezoelectric portion and the signal electrode layer.
However in the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Spigelmyer teaches wherein the at least two divisional element portions are split in the elevation direction in terms of mechanical vibration while each being connected to a part of the piezoelectric portion and the signal electrode layer (fig. 4 the transducers are split via patterned cuts 42, and these cuts are filled with an acoustically isolating material, and each transducer elements are a part of the piezoelectric portion while also being connected through the electrically conductive face 51 that serves as an electrode for the transducer col. 4 line 35-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the filled cuts of Spigelmyer, as this would facilitate the independent operation of the transducer elements (see Spigelmyer col. 4 lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of 16, wherein Hyuga further teaches wherein the piezoelectric portion has a first surface that is in contact with the signal electrode layer and a second surface that is in contact with the ground electrode layer (fig. 2 the top of piezoelectric material 2b is connected to the common electrode 2c while the bottom of 2b is connected to the individual electrode 2a), and the piezoelectric portions of the at least two divisional element portions are adjacent to each other in the elevation direction via a divisional groove extending from the second surface toward the first surface (fig. 2 the groove between the piezoelectric vibrator 2b extends from the ground electric 2c to the individual electrodes 2a).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 16, wherein Hyuga further teaches wherein the divisional groove has a depth dimension larger than 90% of the thickness of the piezoelectric portion (fig. 2 the space between the piezoelectric vibrators are the divisional grooves, and have a depth larger than the piezoelectric vibrator portion).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto, Wildes, Isono, and Spigelmyer as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Jiang.
Regarding claim 19, modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 16, but is silent regarding wherein the divisional groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein the divisional groove has a groove width of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less in the elevation direction (fig. 1 kerfs 14 have a width between 3 μm to about 30 μm, and would include those in the elevation direction [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the kerfs of Jiang, as they would provide structural stability to the piezoelectric elements (see Jiang [0043]).
Regarding claim 20 modified Hyuga teaches the probe of claim 19, wherein Hyuga further teaches wherein the divisional groove is filled with a filler (fig. 2 the space between the piezoelectric vibrators is filled with resins 3 [0041]).
Claim 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto and Wildes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petersen et al., (US20040002435A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Hyuga, teaches the probe of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the piezoelectric elements includes four or five divisional element portions arrayed in the single row in the elevation direction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Petersen teaches wherein each of the piezoelectric elements includes four or five divisional element portions arrayed in the single row in the elevation direction ([0107] four rows of elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the probe of modified Hyuga with the four rows of element portions as taught by Petersen, as this would allow for higher resolution (see Petersen [0107]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 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. Hyuga, Seto, and Wilde have been used to teach the limitations of claim 1.
The remaining claims are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0952. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00pm.
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 at 5712722714. 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.
/MICHAEL YIMING FANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights