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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo (KR 10-2019-0026402 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Yun et al. (KR 10-1672631 (provided in the IDS)) and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2022/0199895).
Addressing claim 1, Jo discloses an ultrasound-focusing transducer used in a high intensity focused ultrasound device, comprising:
two or more piezoelectric elements having a curvature (see Fig. 2, elements 131-133);
a piezoelectric element housing to which the piezoelectric elements are disposed such that the piezoelectric elements have the step difference, to be inclined at an angle of 0° to 30° and bonded (see Fig. 2, element 22 and other support which 131-133 bonded to);
a transducer housing in which a transmission window is formed and the piezoelectric elements and the piezoelectric element housing are accommodated, wherein an ultrasound focal depth is changed due to the curvature or a step difference of the piezoelectric elements (see Fig. 2, window 23; transducer housing 20; Jo discloses step difference produce difference focus depth).
Jo does not disclose wherein the piezoelectric element has a width of 3.5 mm to 6.0 mm, a height of 8.0 mm to 26.0 mm, a radius of curvature of 10.0 mm to 30.0 mm and wherein the piezoelectric elements have a rectangular shape. This is a designer choice that depend on the application and only require routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. From the side way look the piezoelectric element is semi-spherical; however, it is unclear what shape is the piezoelectric element. A rectangular shape piezoelectric element curves up or down on both ends and look from a side way produce a semi-spherical shape. In the same field of endeavor, Yun explicitly discloses a radius of curvature of 10.0 mm to 30.0 mm (see [0055]). In the same field of endeavor, Oh explicitly discloses a width of 3.5 mm to 6.0 mm and a height of 8.0 mm to 26.0 mm (see [0034]) and wherein the piezoelectric elements have a rectangular shape (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jo to have wherein the piezoelectric element has a width of 3.5 mm to 6.0 mm, a height of 8.0 mm to 26.0 mm, a radius of curvature of 10.0 mm to 30.0 mm and wherein the piezoelectric elements have a rectangular shape as taught by Yun and Oh because this is a good size for an ultrasound treatment device that provide effective treatment. The size and shape of a piezoelectric device is a designer choice that only require routine skill in the art and examiner only relies on Yun and Oh to explicitly disclose this designer choice of size/dimension and shape.
4. Addressing claims 7 and 9, Jo discloses:
addressing claim 7, wherein driving frequencies of the piezoelectric elements are the same or different (Fig. 2, the piezoelectric element can only be driven by the same or different frequencies; only these two option exists).
addressing claim 9, wherein an ultrasound transmission film is attached to the transmission window of the transducer (see Fig. 2, element 23; window is form by attach a transmission film over the opening of the housing).
Addressing claim 5, Jo does not disclose wherein the piezoelectric elements have a step difference of 1.0 mm to 3.5 mm. However, this is a designer choice depend on the application that only require routine skill in the art. One skill in the art would know the appropriate step difference between each piezoelectric elements to ensure the piezoelectric elements focus on the design target of each application. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Addressing claims 6 and 8, Yun discloses:
addressing claim 6, wherein the piezoelectric elements have a driving frequency of 2 MHz to 10 MHz (see [0055]).
addressing claim 8, a piezoelectric linear motor for X-axis transfer (see Figs. 6, 8-9 and [0061], 130 is the linear motor that move the transducer in x-axis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Jo does not disclose a rectangular shape piezoelectric element instead he discloses a semi-spherical shape piezoelectric element. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Jo’s Figures are look from the side way therefore it look like a semi-spherical shape, it is unclear what shape Jo’s piezoelectric elements are when look from top down. Oh explicitly discloses rectangular shape piezoelectric element (see Fig. 3). As one can see from applicant’s Fig. 6, if one look from the side way, the piezoelectric elements have radius of curvature (curve downward) which would also look like semi-spherical shape. As one can see from Oh’s Fig. 3, the piezoelectric element is rectangular shape and when this piezoelectric element curves up or down from the two ends and look from the side way it looks like semi-spherical shape. Also see the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure for a clearer picture (US 2020/0059733; Figures 4, 5A-B and 8-9; a rectangular piezoelectric layer when bend and look from a side way look like a semi-spherical shape).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0059733 (see Figures 4, 5A-B and 8-9).
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 HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797