DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the signal generator is disposed at a side closer to the ultrasonic sensor than the electromagnetic shield.” The scope of the claim is indefinite, because it is not clear which “a side closer to” is being referenced, thereby making it impossible to determine the scope of the claim with any certainty.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poland et al., US 2010/0168576 A1 (hereinafter Poland).
Regarding claim 1, Poland teaches an ultrasonic apparatus comprising:
an ultrasonic sensor transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves and outputting an ultrasonic signal corresponding to the received ultrasonic wave (transducer array 70. 80, Fig. 8a);
a circuit coupled to the ultrasonic sensor and processes the ultrasonic signal input from the ultrasonic sensor to generate a reception signal (A/D ASIC 200, acquisition module 206, Fig. 8a);
a wireless communicator coupled to the circuit and converting the reception signal into an electromagnetic wave and transmitting the electromagnetic wave to an external device (transceiver 96, Fig. 8a);
a casing housing the ultrasonic sensor, the circuit, and the wireless communicator (case 8, 8a, Figs. 8a and 8b; “A space frame inside the case serves to mount and locate the components and also serves as a heat spreader to dissipate heat generated within the probe in a rapid and uniform manner,” ¶ 0041); and
an electromagnetic shield disposed between the ultrasonic sensor and the wireless communicator in the casing and shielding the electromagnetic wave (“A space frame inside the case serves to mount and locate the components and also serves as a heat spreader to dissipate heat generated within the probe in a rapid and uniform manner,” ¶ 0041; battery 92, Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 2, Poland teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Poland also teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield is a battery that supplies power to the ultrasonic sensor, the circuit, and the wireless communicator (battery 92, Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 3, Poland teaches the invention of claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above. Poland also teaches wherein the battery is covered by a conductive cover (battery 92, Fig. 8a, contains electrical power that must be transmitted from the battery, and therefore the battery must necessarily inherently include a conductive cover).
Regarding claim 4, Poland teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Poland also teaches a battery supplying power to the ultrasonic sensor, the circuit, and the wireless communicator, wherein
the casing includes a support supporting the battery and having conductivity (battery 92, Fig. 8a, contains electrical power that must be transmitted from the battery, and therefore the battery must necessarily inherently include a conductive cover), and
the electromagnetic shield is the support (“A space frame inside the case serves to mount and locate the components and also serves as a heat spreader to dissipate heat generated within the probe in a rapid and uniform manner,” ¶ 0041).
Regarding claim 5, Poland teaches the invention of claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above. Poland also teaches wherein the support is disposed between the circuit and the wireless communicator (“A space frame inside the case serves to mount and locate the components and also serves as a heat spreader to dissipate heat generated within the probe in a rapid and uniform manner,” ¶ 0041; based on the geometry of the inside of case 8, at least a portion of the space frame must be between the circuit 200, 206 and the wireless communicator 96 in order to properly locate the components as shown in Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 6, Poland teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Poland also teaches wherein the casing has conductivity (casing 8, 8a, supports the conductivity of components contained within the casing which conduct electricity and signals amongst each other; the casing does not, however, appear to have the sort of conductivity that would allow the electrical charge from the battery 92 to travel through the casing and cause an electrical shock to an operator holding the ultrasonic apparatus).
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Kojima, US 2022/0184661 A1 (hereinafter Kojima).
Regarding claim 8, Poland teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Poland does not teach wherein the ultrasonic sensor includes:
a substrate having a first surface and a second surface and including an opening from the first surface to the second surface;
a vibrating plate disposed to cover the first surface of the substrate; and
a piezoelectric element disposed in a position overlapping with the opening on a side surface of the vibrating plate opposite to the substrate, wherein
the piezoelectric element includes a first electrode, a piezoelectric layer, and a second electrode stacked along the substrate thickness direction.
Kojima teaches “an ultrasonic element includes a substrate in which an opening is formed, a vibrating plate provided at the substrate, the vibrating plate including a first surface in contact with the substrate, the vibrating plate blocking the opening, a piezoelectric element provided at a second surface on an opposite side from the first surface of the vibrating plate, a protective substrate facing the second surface and protecting the piezoelectric element, and a suppressing unit provided between the protective substrate and the vibrating plate, the suppressing unit being configured to suppress a vibration of the vibrating plate, in which in the piezoelectric element, a first electrode, a piezoelectric layer, and a second electrode are stacked in this order from the second surface, and an active part is a part of the vibrating plate where the first electrode, the piezoelectric layer, and the second electrode overlap, the suppressing unit is provided around the active part, and a slit is formed in the suppressing unit, in plan view from a stacking direction” (Abstract).
It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art could easily replace the ultrasonic beam former of Poland with the ultrasonic beam former of Kojima, because this would predictably provide an ultrasonic beam former with the advantages and performance of the device of Kojima, without otherwise altering the operation of Poland.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poland to use the ultrasonic beam former of Kojima, because this would predictably provide an ultrasonic beam former with the advantages and performance of the device of Kojima, without otherwise altering the operation of Poland, thereby resulting in wherein the ultrasonic sensor includes: a substrate having a first surface and a second surface and including an opening from the first surface to the second surface; a vibrating plate disposed to cover the first surface of the substrate; and a piezoelectric element disposed in a position overlapping with the opening on a side surface of the vibrating plate opposite to the substrate, wherein the piezoelectric element includes a first electrode, a piezoelectric layer, and a second electrode stacked along the substrate thickness direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180317883 A1 discloses a portable ultrasound probe is described having a mechanical transducer, rotating mirror, and mirror motor. The transducer can be used for diagnostic imaging and procedural guidance imaging. The probe has a light weight design for easy one-handed use, and can use external processors to provide proper image display with accompanying software.
US 20240315667 A1 discloses an ultrasound probe with thermal management and methods for using and manufacturing the same are described. In some embodiments, an ultrasound probe includes electronics configured to control transmission and reception of ultrasound signals and a battery configured to provide power to the electronics. The ultrasound probe also includes a battery holder configured to house the battery and transfer heat away from the electronics and an enclosure configured to establish a seal that isolates the electronics from the battery and an environment external to the ultrasound probe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
05 September 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights