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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2014/0208858 A1 – hereafter “Jiang”) in view of Mastrangelo et al. (US 2013/0122301 A1 – hereafter “Mastrangelo”).
As per claim 1, Jiang teaches a surface-micromachined optical ultrasound transducer array device (a sensor head array wafer formed by anodic bonding of patterned wafers, see para [0017]; for detecting signals of sound wave and ultrasound, see para [0001]) comprising:
a substrate (glass wafer 5, see para [0037]);
a planar first partially optically reflective layer disposed on a front surface of the substrate (silicon wafer 4, anodically bonded to glass wafer 5 to form the first reflective surface of the fabry-perot (F-P) cavity, see para [0038]);
a second partially optically reflective layer disposed over the first partially optically reflective layer (silicon wafer 1, forming the second reflective surface of the F-P cavity, see para [0038]);
and an array of Fabry-Perot cavities defined between the first and second partially reflective layers (a sensor head array wafer having a four-layer structure is formed by anodic bonding, in vacuum, the through holes array of Pyrex glass wafer 2 and the through holes array of Pyrex glass wafer 5, positioned concentrically with silicon wafers 1 and 4, see para [0017]),
the Fabry-Perot cavities being bounded at its bottom by the first partially optically reflective layer (rear surface 14 of wafer 4 forms the first reflecting surface of the F-P cavity, see para [0038])
and its a top and sides by respective flexible diaphragms (silicon wafer 1 is used as an elastic diaphragm bounding the top of the F-P cavity, see para [0038]) formed by the second partially optically reflective layer
However, Jiang does not teach the Fabry-Perot cavities being bounded at its sides by side walls formed the second partially optically reflective layer; in Jiang, the cavity side walls are instead formed by a separate Pyrex glass wafer (wafer 2), distinct from the first and second partially optically reflective layers.
Mastrangelo teaches an array of pressure sensitive devices (see abstract; fig. 5f) in which a cavity is bounded at its top and sides by a flexible diaphragm and integral side walls formed together by a single continuous layer (layer 530, deposited directly over a patterned sacrificial island to form both the top diaphragm and integral side walls formed together by a single continuous layer (layer 530, deposited directly over a patterned sacrificial island to form both the top diaphragm and the side walls of the cavity in one structure; see fig. 5, para [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo to form the side walls of the Fabry-Perot cavities integrally with the second partially optically reflective layer, as taught by Mastrangelo, rather than using Jiang’s separate spacer wafer, in order to simplify fabrication by eliminating a separate bonding and alignment step for the spacer wafer, thereby reducing the number of layers and bonding operations required to form each Fabry-Perot cavity.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, further comprising a sealing layer disposed over the second partially optically reflective layer.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo teach the device of claim 1. Mastrangelo further teaches a sealing layer disposed over the second layer (depositing a top diaphragm 530, see para [0065]; sealing the cavity at a low pressure, see para [0065]; a vacuum sealed cavity, see para [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo to incorporate a sealing layer disposed over the second partially optically reflective layer in order to provide a plurality of vacuum sealed transducers for improved pressure monitoring.
Claims 15 and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi et al. (US 2013/0096413 A1 – hereafter “Ashkenazi”).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, further comprising: an optical interrogation array configured to direct light through a back surface of the substrate into and collect reflected light from the individual optical ultrasound transducer elements of the array.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo fails to teach an optical interrogation array configured to direct light through a back surface of the substrate into and collect reflected light from the individual optical ultrasound transducer elements of the array.
Ashkenazi teaches an optical ultrasound transducer array device comprising multiple imaging elements formed into an array, wherein a bundle of single mode or multimode fibers, each coated with a first reflecting surface, forms an ultrasound transducer having multiple imaging elements (see para [0029]), fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi to incorporate multiple optical interrogation elements as taught by Ashkenazi in order to enable interrogation of an array of optical ultrasound transducer elements by providing an optical fiber, configured as taught by Jiang for each element of the array.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “The device of claim 15, wherein the optical interrogation array comprises an array of optical fibers extending from the back surface of the substrate at least partially through the substrate, each optical fiber being aligned with one of the optical ultrasound transducer elements.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi teach the device of claim 15. Jiang teaches an optical fiber extending from the back surface of the substrate at least partially through the substrate, aligned with an optical ultrasound transducer element (optical fiber 9 extending from wafer 5 and at least partially through wafer 5, aligned with the Fabry-Perot cavity, fig. 1). Ashkenazi further teaches arranging multiple such fibers into an array, each fiber aligned with a respective imaging element (see para [0029], fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi to provide an array of optical fibers, each aligned with one of the optical ultrasound transducer elements, in order to enable interrogation of each element of the array individually.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, further comprising: an imaging optical fiber bundle configured to direct light through a back surface of the substrate into and collect reflected light from the array of optical ultrasound transducer elements to image the array.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo fails to teach an imaging optical fiber bundle configured to direct light through a back surface of the substrate into and collect reflected light from the array of optical ultrasound transducer elements to image the array.
Ashkenazi teaches an optical ultrasound transducer array device comprising a bundle of optical fibers configured to form an ultrasound transducer having multiple imaging elements (see para [0029], fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi to incorporate an imaging optical fiber bundle, each fiber configured as taught by Jiang and arranged into a bundle as taught by Ashkenazi, in order to image an array of optical ultrasound transducer elements.
Claims 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in Wang et al. (US 2006/0221450 A1 – hereafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, wherein the first and second partially optically reflective layers are distributed Bragg reflectors each formed by a stack of alternating material layers.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo teaches device of claim 1 but fail to teach wherein the first and second partially optically reflective layers are distributed Bragg reflectors each formed by a stack of alternating material layers.
Wang teaches a Fabry-Perot cavity filter (Fabry-Perot cavity filter 110) comprising a first partially reflective layer and a second partially reflective layer each formed as a distributed Bragg reflector comprising a stack of alternating material layers (three pairs of quarter wavelength Si/SiN.sub.x stacks 115 used as a top DBR 130, see para [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Wang to form the first and second partially optically reflective layers as distributed Bragg reflectors each formed by a stack of alternating material layers, as taught by Wang, in order to increase the reflectivity of the device and thereby reduce the spectral linewidth of the reflectivity, improving the resolution of the optical ultrasound transducer.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The device of claim 2, wherein a resonance wavelength of the Fabry-P6rot cavities is within a reflection band of the distributed Bragg reflectors.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in further view of Wang teach the device of claim 2. Wang further teaches wherein a resonance wavelength of the Fabry-Perot cavity is within a reflection band of the distributed Bragg reflectors (the thickness of each DBR layer is determined so as to obtain a uniform high reflectance over the optical band of the DBR, para [0007]; the Fabry-Perot transmission peak shifts within the optical band as the cavity height changes, see para [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Wang to align the resonance wavelength of the Fabry-Perot cavities within the reflection band of the distributed Bragg reflectors, as taught by Wang, in order to ensure the cavity operates where the DBR reflectance is high and uniform, since operating outside that band would result in reduced and non-uninform reflectance that degrades sensor performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in Zhao et al. (US 2023/0148869 A1 – hereafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, wherein a pitch of the array of optical ultrasound transducer elements is less than half of an acoustic wavelength at a center frequency of an acoustic frequency spectrum of the optical ultrasound transducer elements.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo teach the device of claim 1 but fail to teach a pitch of the array of optical ultrasound transducer elements is less than half of an acoustic wavelength at a center frequency of an acoustic frequency spectrum of the optical ultrasound transducer elements.
Zhao teaches an ultrasound transducer array wherein at least one row may have a pitch that is smaller than or equal to half of a wavelength of a center frequency of the transducer (see para [0008]), wherein the pitch may measure smaller than half wavelength of the operational frequency of the acoustic waves (see para [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Zhao to configure the pitch of the array of optical ultrasound transducer elements to be less than half of an acoustic wavelength at a center frequency of an acoustic wavelength at a center frequency of an acoustic frequency spectrum of the optical ultrasound transducer elements, as taught by Zhao, in order to avoid the generation of grating lobes in the array’s beam patter, thereby improving the quality of images or signals acquired using the array.
Claims 16 – 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi and in further view of Fisher et al. (US 2017/0098729 A1 – hereafter “Fisher”).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “The device of claim 15, wherein the optical interrogation array comprises a microlens array disposed on the back surface of the substrate and comprising microlenses each aligned with one of the optical ultrasound transducer elements.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi teach the device of claim 15 but fail to teach the optical interrogation array comprises a microlens array disposed on the back surface of the substrate and comprising microlenses each aligned with one of the optical ultrasound transducer elements.
Fisher teaches a microlens array disposed on a back surface of a substrate and comprising microlenses each aligned with a respective element of an array of underlying cells (a lightweight lens array 603 molded and mounted directly on the surface of a wafer 601, see para [0090]; concentrating optical elements 703d aligned with a subset of cells 702, see para [0096]; lens elements 103e of the array 103 aligned with respective ones of the underlying cells, see para [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi and in further view of Fisher to provide a microlens array disposed on the back surface of the substrate, with each microlens aligned with one of the optical ultrasound transducer elements, in order to improve the efficiency of light coupling into and out of each element by concentrating light onto the respective element.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The device of claim 16, wherein the microlenses have circular cross-sectional shapes.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi and in further Fisher teach the device of claim 16. Fisher further teaches wherein the microlens have circular cross-sectional shapes (an array of spherical ball lenses 1203e, see para [0115]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi and in further view of Fisher to provide a microlenses having circular cross-sectional shapes, as taught by Fisher, in order to allow the microlenses to be assembled by self-centering onto the substrate, simplifying manufacture and alignment of the microlenses array.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “The device of claim 16, wherein the microlenses are Fresnel lenses.”
Jiang in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi and in further Fisher teach the device of claim 16. Fisher further teaches wherein the microlens are Fresnel lenses (the lens array 703e may include an array of Fresnel lenses instead of the illustrated array of plano-convex lenses, see para [0094]; stretched lens array use a linear Fresnel lens built from silicone, see para [0119]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jiang’s device in view of Mastrangelo in further view Ashkenazi and in further view of Fisher to form the microlenses as Fresnel lenses, as taught by Fisher, in order to reduce the overall mass and profile of the microlens array.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6 – 7, 11 – 14 and 18 – 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights