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
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/15/2025 has been entered. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: The limitations “a first conductive pattern electrically connecting the signal electrode layers of two divisional element portions that are disposed at both ends in the elevation direction among the plurality of divisional element portions to each other in each of the piezoelectric elements” and “a second conductive pattern different from the first conductive pattern electrically connecting the signal electrode layers of at least two divisional element portions that are disposed at a center in the elevation direction and that are adjacent to each other in the elevation direction, among the plurality of divisional element portions, to each other in each of the piezoelectric elements” are awkwardly structured and makes the scope of the limitations difficult to readily ascertain. Applicant is requested to amend the claim to clarify the relationship between the conductive patterns and the divisional element portions. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Kojima et al., (US20150187347A1).
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 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]),
each of the piezoelectric elements is divided into 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)),
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
the ultrasound probe comprises (fig. 1 ultrasound probe [0040]);
two divisional element portions that are disposed at a center in the elevation direction that are adjacent to each other in the elevation direction among the plurality of divisional element portions, to each other in each of the piezoelectric portions (see annotated fig. 6B, there are two divisional elements that are in a center and are adjacent in the elevation direction)
.
PNG
media_image1.png
439
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 a first conductive pattern electrically connecting the signal electrode layers of two divisional element portions that are disposed at both ends in the elevation direction among the plurality of divisional element portions to each other in each of the piezoelectric elements; and a second conductive pattern different from the first conductive pattern electrically connecting the signal electrode layers of at least two divisional element portions that are adjacent to each other in the elevation direction, among the plurality of divisional element portions, are electrically connected to each other
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Kojima teaches a first conductive pattern electrically connecting the signal electrode layers of two divisional element portions that are disposed at both ends in the elevation direction among the plurality of divisional element portions to each other in each of the piezoelectric elements (annotated fig. 3, the two division elements portions disposed at both ends in the elevation direction and the electrodes are connected by the conductive patterns); and
a second conductive pattern different from the first conductive pattern electrically connecting the signal electrode layers of at least two divisional element portions that are adjacent to each other in the elevation direction, among the plurality of divisional element portions, are electrically connected to each other (see annotated fig. 3 the divisional elements disposed at a center in the elevation direction and adjacent are electrically connected to each other through conductive lines 22 [0038]).
PNG
media_image2.png
564
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 division elements of modified Hyuga with the electrodes of Kojima, as this would easily allow for a structure in which voltages can be applied to all piezoelectric elements (see Kojima [0040]). One of ordinary skill would understand that the second conductive pattern as taught by Kojima would apply to Hyuga’s divisional element portions that are adjacent at a center, and would thus result in the reading of a second conductive pattern different from the first conductive pattern electrically connecting the signal electrode layers of at least two divisional element portions that are disposed at a center in the elevation direction and that are adjacent to each other in the elevation direction, among the plurality of divisional element portions, to each other in each of the piezoelectric elements.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuga as modified by Seto and Kojima 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, Kojima, 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, Kojima, 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, Kojima, 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, Kojima, 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, Kojima, 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., electronically vary the focal point because elements connected via conductive lines 22 are driven by a common voltage.) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Rather, the claims only require conductive patterns electrically connecting the specified element portions (such as annotated fig. 3 Kojima above), and does not preclude ones that are electrically connected to multiple portions. Further, it is the combination of Hyuga in view of Seto and Kojima that teaches the claimed conductive pattern, regardless of whether or not the prior arts utilizes the same focusing functionality.
The remaining claims are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
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 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