Acoustic Transducer and Devices Comprising the Same
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phase “an acoustic coupling element” should read “the acoustic coupling element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 5 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung").
Regarding claim 1, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, an acoustic transducer (TITLE, “Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers for… AlN Resonators”), comprising: a piezo-electric layer arranged between a first electrode and a second electrode (see fig. 1b, examiner notes Hung’s aluminum nitride piezo structure is depicted between “thicker electrode(s)”, also see Hung’s annotated figure 1 below), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode (see previous comment) are configured to be connected to a voltage source (see fig. 1b) to provide a high frequent AC voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode (see fig. 1b, examiner notes Hung depicts an AC voltage source connected between the top and bottom “thicker electrode(s)”), wherein the piezo-electric layer (see previous comment) has a pair of mutually opposite main surfaces (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 below), and wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is mechanically decoupled from the pair of mutually opposite main surfaces gaps (p. 459, col. 2, ¶ 1, Hung “separates piezoelectric contour-mode AlN resonators from their electrodes by tiny submicron gaps”).
Examiner notes that the limitation “for operating the acoustic transducer” is an intended use type statement. Applicant is reminded that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, a first main surface (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above), of the pair of mutually opposite main surfaces (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above), faces the first electrode (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above), and wherein a second main surface (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above), of the pair of mutually opposite main surfaces, faces the second electrode (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above), wherein the second main surface and the second electrode are mechanically decoupled (p. 459, col. 2, ¶ 1, Hung “separates piezoelectric contour-mode AlN resonators from their electrodes by tiny submicron gaps”, also see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above, “gap”).
Regarding claim 3, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, the second main surface and the second electrode (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above) are mechanically decoupled by a gap (p. 459, col. 2, ¶ 1, Hung “separates piezoelectric contour-mode AlN resonators from their electrodes by tiny submicron gaps”, also see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above, “gap”).
Regarding claim 5, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, the gap is filled with a gas or a mixture thereof of gases (see fig. 1b caption, Hung’s gaps are air gaps, the examiner construes air to mean a mixture of gases).
Regarding claim 9, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, a voltage source (see fig. 1b) configured to drive the acoustic transducer with an AC drive voltage (see fig. 1b, examiner notes Hung depicts an AC voltage source connected between the top and bottom “thicker electrode(s)”).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung") as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Goryachev (IEEE, "Recent progress… low loss acoustic cavities", 2013; "Goryachev").
Regarding claim 4, Hung fails to explicitly disclose the gap is evacuated.
Goryachev teaches the gap is evacuated (p. 2, col. 2, ¶ 1, Goryachev’s BVA technology has electrodes “separated from the crystal plate by a tiny vacuum gap”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Goryachev’s scheme of evacuating a gap between the electrodes and Piezo element of a resonator into Hung’s piezoelectric transducers design having with tiny submicron gaps between electrodes and contour-mode AlN resonators since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of minimizing acoustic losses.
Claims 8, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung") as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hakamata (US 4510411; “Hakamata”).
Regarding claim 8, Hung fails to disclose first and/or second electrode are a plurality of electrode segments.
Hakamata teaches in figure 3A-3B, the first electrode (5) comprises a plurality of mutually insulated electrode segments (501-516) that are laterally distributed (see fig. 3B) on the first main surface of the piezo-electric layer (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hakamata’s scheme of providing segment electrodes opposing a surface of Hung’s piezo structure since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of providing a high efficiency surface-wave driven motor.
Regarding claim 16, Hung and Hakamata disclose, in Hung’s figures 1-21, the second main surface and the second electrode are mechanically decoupled by a gap (p. 459, col. 2, ¶ 1, Hung “separates piezoelectric contour-mode AlN resonators from their electrodes by tiny submicron gaps”, also see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above, “gap”).
Regarding claim 18, Hung and Hakamata disclose, in Hung’s figures 1-21, the gap is filled with a filling taken from the group consisting of: a gas; a mixture of gases (see fig. 1b caption, Hung’s gaps are air gaps, the examiner construes air to mean a mixture of gases).
Claims 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung") as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 10, Hung does not explicitly disclose the gap has a breakdown voltage that is less than a breakdown voltage of the piezo-electric layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an air gap width to provide Hung’s AlN element with a breakdown voltage greater than the air gap breakdown voltage. Doing so prevents permanent damage of the piezo element by breakdown before the air gap conducts current.
Regarding claim 11, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, a voltage source (see fig. 1b, examiner notes Hung depicts an AC voltage source connected between the top and bottom “thicker electrode(s)”) configured to drive the acoustic transducer (see fig. 1b) with a drive voltage (the examiner construes Hung’s voltage source as providing a drive voltage).
Hung does not explicitly disclose the drive voltage is less than a breakdown voltage of the piezo-electric layer and greater than the breakdown voltage of the gap.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a drive Hung’s transducer with a voltage having a magnitude that is higher than the breakdown voltage of the gap and lower than the breakdown voltage of the piezo-electric layer since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Doing so prevents permanent damage of the piezo element by breakdown before the air gap conducts current.
Regarding claim 20, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, the gap is filled with a filling taken from the group consisting of: a gas; a mixture of gases (see fig. 1b caption, Hung’s gaps are air gaps, the examiner construes air to mean a mixture of gases).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung") as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Belt (WO 2017186781; “Belt”).
Regarding claim 12, Hung fails to disclose a signal processor to process a sense signal issued by the acoustic transducer in response to a sensed external acoustic signal.
Belt teaches, in figures 1-9, a signal processor (22, 26) to process a sense signal (p. 24, lines 10-29, Belt’s processors employ signal processing on acoustic signals including filtering, amplitude detection, B-mode image forming and motion detection) issued by the acoustic transducer (100, 110) in response to a sensed external acoustic signal (p. 23, lines 13-14, “signals received by groups… of transformers”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Belt’s scheme of further processing acoustic transformer signals using signal processors to process signals produced by Hung’s acoustic transducers since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way converting Hung’s output signals into usable formats.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung") as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shekhawat (US 20110036170; “Shekhawat”).
Regarding claim 13, Hung fails to disclose a flexible carrier.
Shekhawat teaches, in figures 1-11, a flexible carrier (see Shekhawat’s annotated fig. 2 below) having a first surface provided with an acoustic coupling element (see Shekhawat’s annotated fig. 2 below) and a second surface, opposite the acoustic coupling element, wherein the acoustic transducer is provided on the flexible carrier (see Shekhawat’s annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
648
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Shekhawat’s scheme of Scanning Near Field Thermoeleastic Acoustic Holography using Hung’s acoustic transducers since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so increases the application of Hung’s high Q AlN resonators.
Regarding claim 14, Hung and Shekhawat disclose, in Shekhawat’s figures 1-11, a carrier for carrying a sample (see Shekhawat’s annotated fig. 2 above); a signal generator (Shekhawat (32, 34)) to generate a drive signal (Shekhawat, ¶ 0045, examiner notes the sample ultrasonic vibration is driven by function generators), wherein the probe is configured to generate, in response to the drive signal (see previous comment) an ultrasound acoustic input signal having at least one acoustic input signal component (¶ 0047, Shekhawat launches an acoustic wave from below and above the specimen) and the acoustic coupling element to transmit the acoustic input signal as an acoustic wave into the sample (see Shekhawat’s annotated fig. 2 above), and wherein the probe comprises a sensor facility to provide a sensor signal that is indicative of an acoustic signal resulting from reflections of the acoustic wave within the sample (¶ 0062, (940) Shekhawat detects “interaction between the vibrating tip and the vibrating sample”, this interaction is “provided as a tip deflection signal”); and a signal processor configured to generate an image signal in accordance with the sensor signal (¶ 0045, Shekhawat’s computer/ signal processor acquires amplitude and phase of the differential signal and produces a SNFUH image signal output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Shekhawat’s scheme of Scanning Near Field Thermoeleastic Acoustic Holography using Hung’s acoustic transducers since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so increases the application of Hung’s high Q AlN resonators.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung").
Regarding claim 15, Hung discloses, in figures 1-21, providing a piezo-electric layer (see fig. 1b, examiner notes Hung includes an aluminum nitride piezo structure, also see Hung’s annotated figure 1 below) that has a pair of mutually opposite main surfaces (see Hung’s annotated figure 1 above); arranging the piezo-electric layer between a first electrode and a second electrode (see fig. 1b, examiner notes Hung’s aluminum nitride piezo structure is depicted between “thicker electrode(s)”, also see Hung’s annotated figure 1 below), such that at least one electrode of the first electrode and the second electrode is mechanically decoupled from the main surfaces of the piezo-electric layer (p. 459, col. 2, ¶ 1, Hung “separates piezoelectric contour-mode AlN resonators from their electrodes by tiny submicron gaps”); and applying an AC-voltage between the electrodes (see fig. 1b, examiner notes Hung depicts an AC voltage source connected between the top and bottom “thicker electrode(s)”).
Hung fails to explicitly disclose applying an AC-voltage having a frequency corresponding to the frequency of the ultrasound acoustic wave to be generated.
The Examiner takes official notice that driving an acoustic piezo transducer with an AC drive voltage having a frequency equal to the desired acoustic output is well-known in the art.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to drive Hung’s transducer with an AC voltage between the electrodes with a frequency corresponding to the desired ultrasound frequency to be generated. Doing so allows the desired acoustic frequency to be produced.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung") and Hakamata (US 4510411; “Hakamata”), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Goryachev (IEEE, "Recent progress… low loss acoustic cavities", 2013; "Goryachev").
Regarding claim 17, Hung and Hakamata fail to explicitly disclose the gap is evacuated.
Goryachev teaches the gap is evacuated (p. 2, col. 2, ¶ 1, Goryachev’s BVA technology has electrodes “separated from the crystal plate by a tiny vacuum gap”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Goryachev’s scheme of evacuating a gap between the electrodes and Piezo element of a resonator into Hung and Hakamata’s piezoelectric transducers design having with tiny submicron gaps between electrodes and contour-mode AlN resonators since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of minimizing acoustic losses.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, Capacitive-Piezoelectric Transducers…", 2015; "Hung") as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Belt (WO 2017186781; “Belt”).
Regarding claim 19, Hung fails to disclose a signal processor to process a sense signal issued by the acoustic transducer in response to a sensed external acoustic signal.
Belt teaches, in figures 1-9, a signal processor (22, 26) to process a sense signal (p. 24, lines 10-29, Belt’s processors employ signal processing on acoustic signals including filtering, amplitude detection, B-mode image forming and motion detection) issued by the acoustic transducer (100, 110) in response to a sensed external acoustic signal (p. 23, lines 13-14, “signals received by groups… of transformers”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Belt’s scheme of further processing acoustic transformer signals using signal processors to process signals produced by Hung’s acoustic transducers since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way converting Hung’s output signals into usable formats.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hung to include the gap is filled with a liquid. Doing so would increase loading through viscous damping and reduce the Quality factor. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hung to include the gap is filled with an electrically conductive foam. Doing so would increase loading and reduce the Quality factor. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights