DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I. Claim(s) 1-19, drawn to a probe, classified in A61B5/055 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRYZEK (US 2022/0000451 A1) in view of SUDOL (US 20130345567 A1) in view of PALUMBO (US 2017/0239726).
Referring to Claim 1, BRYZEK teaches a probe ([0074]), comprising:
the porous matrix at least partially filled with at least one filler ([0022]-[0023]: the porous metal foam is filled with a solid matrix, and wherein the solid matrix optionally contains a mixture of high acoustic impedance and low acoustic impedance powders to provide acoustic scattering), and one or more thermal management structures ([0076]-[0081]; [0100]-[0023]), and to enable a transfer of heat from a front of the probe to a rear of the probe ([0076]-[0081]; [0100]-[0023]), and wherein at least a portion of the additively manufactured backing is additively manufactured with multiple different materials ([0068]; [0082]) having different acoustic properties ([0068]), different thermal properties ([0082]), or different mechanical properties ([0069]; [0072]; [0074]).
BRYZEK doesn’t explicitly an additively manufactured backing having a porous matrix; wherein the additively manufactured backing is configured to attenuate acoustic energy
PALUMBO teaches an additively manufactured backing having a porous matrix ([0002]; [0021]).
SUDOL an additively manufactured backing is configured to attenuate acoustic energy ([0013]-[0016]; Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the probe disclosed in BRYZEK with the additively manufactured backing taught in PALUMBO and SUDOL with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a probe with a porous backing filled with backing filler (epoxy particles) to obtain acoustic attenuation and thermal conduction.
Referring to Claim 2, PALUMBO teaches the probe of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured backing is additively manufactured with a primary material forming the porous matrix and one or more secondary materials distributed throughout the porous matrix, wherein the one or more secondary materials differ in acoustic impedance from the primary material ([0002]; [0021]; [0035]; Fig. 2A and 2B).
Referring to Claim 3, BRYZEK teaches the probe of claim 2, wherein the primary material is an acoustic material configured to attenuate the acoustic energy and the one or more secondary materials are configured to increase scattering to enhance attenuation of the acoustic energy ([0021]-[0023]; [0068]).
Referring to Claim 4, PALUMBO teaches the probe of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured backing is additively manufactured with a primary material forming the porous matrix and one or more secondary materials distributed within or about the porous matrix, wherein the one or more secondary materials have a higher strength than the primary material ([0043]; Fig, 13).
Referring to Claim 5, PALUMBO teaches the probe of claim 4, wherein the one or more secondary materials form a mechanical structure within the porous matrix ([0021]).
Referring to Claim 6, BRYZEK teaches the probe of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured backing is additively manufactured with a primary material forming the porous matrix and one or more secondary materials distributed within or about the porous matrix, wherein the one or more secondary materials have a higher thermal conductivity than the primary material ([0023]; [0049]-[0050]).
Referring to Claim 7, PALUMBO teaches the probe of claim 6, wherein the one or more secondary materials form a structure disposed about at least a portion of a perimeter of the porous matrix ([0027]; [0045]).
Referring to Claim 8, BRYZEK teaches the probe of claim 6, wherein the primary material and the one or more secondary materials form gradient structures that continuously vary with respect to each other in both acoustic and thermal properties ([0065]; [0068]; [0082]).
Referring to Claim 9, BRYZEK teaches the probe of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured backing is additively manufactured with a primary material forming the porous matrix and one or more secondary materials forming one or more mechanical features within the porous matrix, wherein the one or more mechanical features are configured to interface with fasteners to couple the porous matrix to a support structure ([0068]; [0072]-[0074]).
Referring to Claim 10, BRYZEK teaches the probe of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured backing is additively manufactured with a primary material forming the porous matrix and one or more secondary materials forming a support structure coupled to the porous matrix ([0006]-[0007]; [0049]-[0050]; [0068]; [0072]; Fig. 2A; 2B; 3A-3C).
Referring to Claim 11, PALUMBO teaches the probe of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured backing is additively manufactured with a primary material forming the porous matrix and one or more secondary materials forming the at least one filler, wherein the porous matrix and the at least one filler are additively manufactured at a same time ([0027]; [0049]-[0050]; [0068]).
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a method for manufacturing a transducer probe of probe Claim 1. Therefore Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Referring to Claim 13, PALUMBO teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising mixing two or more powders together to form a powder mix having the multiple different materials prior to additively manufacturing the backing ([0025]).
Referring to Claim 14, PALUMBO teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising manufacturing a powder composite with a mixture of two or more powders prior to additively manufacturing the backing, wherein the powder composite has the multiple different materials ([0025]; [0065]).
Referring to Claim 15, PALUMBO teaches the method of claim 12, wherein additively manufacturing of the backing occurs with a mixture of different powders having the multiple different materials, wherein the mixture of different powders comprises a primary powder that forms the porous matrix and one or more secondary powders that are sacrificed during the additive manufacturing of the backing forming random pores within the porous matrix ([0027]-[0029]).
Referring to Claim 16, BRYZEK teaches the method of claim 12, wherein additively manufacturing of the backing occurs with a mixture of different powders having the multiple different materials, wherein during additive manufacturing of the backing two or more powders of the mixture of different powders chemically react with each other forming a new chemical composition ([0068]).
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 above.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Isam Alsomire can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/ /ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights