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 § 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.
Claims 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim first recites a cavity located between the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer and subsequently recites that the capacitor protrusions are disposed in a cavity. The second recitation of “a cavity” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the second recitation refers to the previously introduced cavity or introduces a different cavity. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is interpreted as referring to the same cavity (“the cavity”).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites that the distance between two adjacent capacitor protrusions is greater than or equivalent to a pre-determined value. The claim is indefinite because the “pre-determined value” is not defined in the claim and is unbounded, such that the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained; any spacing whatsoever is greater than or equal to some pre-determined value. The specification describes an exposure-resolution-based spacing but the claim imports no boundary. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the height of each of the protrusions. The recitation “the protrusions” lacks clear antecedent basis: claim 1 introduces “a plurality of capacitor protrusions,” and other claims in the claim set separately introduce “electrode protrusions” and “insulating protrusions,” such that the dropped modifier renders the referent unclear. The claim further recites “a half or a third of the gap,” whereas claim 1 frames the comparison against “a height of the gap.” For purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as reciting that the height of each of the capacitor protrusions is less than a half or a third of the height of the gap.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the protrusions are located in the second region. The recitation “the protrusions” suffers from the same dropped-modifier defect identified for claim 11. For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as reciting that the capacitor protrusions are located in the second region.
Claims 2–17 are additionally rejected as depending from indefinite claim 1 and thereby inheriting its indefiniteness. MPEP § 2173.05(g); see also § 608.01(n). Claims 14–16 further inherit the indefiniteness of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TIAN (US2006/0004289A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tian teaches an ultrasonic transducer device(FIG. 20, cMUT transceiver 81; ¶ [0030], medical imaging),
comprising: a substrate(¶ [0031]; lower electrode 12 disposed on a substrate);
and an ultrasonic oscillation unit disposed on the substrate(FIGS. 15–20; ¶¶ [0053]–[0055], bonded cMUT structure),
wherein the ultrasonic oscillation unit comprises a first electrode layer(¶ [0053]; FIG. 15, high-conductivity silicon layer 58 — lower electrode),
a first insulating layer(¶ [0053]; FIG. 17, electrical insulation 66 over the cavity floor),
a second electrode layer(¶ [0055]; FIG. 20, upper electrode 83),
a second insulating layer(¶ [0054]; FIG. 18, non-conductive diaphragm 74),
a plurality of capacitor protrusions(¶ [0054]; FIG. 18, studs 76; ¶ [0033], arrangement of studs including an array),
and a cavity located between the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer(¶ [0053]; FIG. 16, cavity 64 between insulation 66 and diaphragm 74);
the capacitor protrusions are disposed in a cavity by being disposed on at least one of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer(¶ [0054]; studs 76 formed on diaphragm 74, projecting into cavity 64 );
the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are separated by a gap and are located between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer(FIGS. 19–20; cavity 64 separating layers 66 and 74; stack between electrodes 58 and 83),
and a height of each of the capacitor protrusions is less than a height of the gap(¶ [0006]; in-cavity element providing gap width less than cavity depth; ¶ [0045], stud height below 0.2 µm).
Regarding claim 2/1, Tian teaches the capacitor protrusions are arranged as a one-dimensional or two-dimensional array(¶¶ [0033], [0039]; FIGS. 5, 11, array of studs),
and a distance between two adjacent capacitor protrusions of the capacitor protrusions is greater than or equivalent to a pre-determined value(FIG. 11; adjacent studs of the array spaced apart, any designed spacing reads on the unbounded pre-determined value as interpreted under § 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 8/1, Tian teaches the capacitor protrusions are located on a first surface of the second insulating layer(¶ [0054]; FIG. 18, studs 76 on the cavity-facing surface of diaphragm 74),
a second surface of the second insulating layer is connected to the second electrode layer(¶ [0055]; FIG. 20, upper electrode 83 on the opposite surface of diaphragm 74),
and the first surface and the second surface are located on two opposite sides of the second insulating layer(FIG. 20).
Regarding claim 17/1, Tian teaches the second electrode layer, relative to the first electrode layer, is driven by an alternate current voltage or an external sound pressure to generate vibrations(¶¶ [0036], [0043]; AC excitation pulse producing membrane deflection).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TIAN(US2006/0004289A1).
Regarding claim 11/1, Tian teaches the ultrasonic transducer device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Tian does not explicitly recite the height of each of the protrusions is less than a half or a third of the gap as a ratio. Tian is silent as to the ratio because it states the protrusion height and the cavity dimension as separate parameters rather than as a proportion of one to the other; Tian nonetheless defines the operative gap in the same terms the claim uses — the space between the top of the studs and the upper electrode, that is, the cavity depth less the stud height(¶ [0045]; “effective depth…between the top of the studs…and the upper electrode (i.e., the ‘gap’)”). Applying Tian’s own definition of the gap, Tian discloses a stud height of less than 0.2 µm(¶ [0045]) within a cavity depth ranging from tenths of a micron to a few microns(¶ [0031]). A 0.2 µm stud within a cavity depth of approximately 0.6 µm or greater yields a stud height less than a half of the gap so defined, and a cavity depth of approximately 0.8 µm or greater yields a stud height less than a third of the gap; both lie within Tian’s disclosed cavity-depth range. The claimed ranges therefore overlap the dimensions Tian discloses, which establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the stud height to less than a half or a third of Tian’s gap in order to increase the capacitance change for a given incident acoustic wave and thereby enhances receive sensitivity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TIAN(US2006/0004289A1) in view of HUANG(US2005/0228285A1).
Regarding claim 12/1, Tian teaches the ultrasonic transducer device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Tian does not explicitly teach an upper insulating layer disposed on the second electrode layer. Tian’s disclosed stack terminates at the upper electrode 83(¶ [0055]) with no overlying layer disclosed.
However, Huang teaches an upper insulating layer disposed on the second electrode layer(¶ [0018]; low-temperature oxide 32 deposited as a passive layer over top-electrode metallization 31).
Tian and Huang are in the same field of cMUT devices for ultrasonic sensing and address the same problem of reliable electrode operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit Huang’s passivation oxide over Tian’s upper electrode, for the predictable benefit of passivating and protecting the top-electrode metallization as Huang teaches(¶ [0018]; passive layer with patterned openings for bonding pads). The combination applies a known passivation technique to a known cMUT structure with predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TIAN(US2006/0004289A1) in view of ALIE(US2022/0415296A1).
Regarding claim 18, Tian teaches an ultrasonic transducer device comprising a substrate(¶ [0031]);
and an ultrasonic oscillation unit disposed on the substrate(FIGS. 15–20; ¶¶ [0053]–[0055]),
wherein the ultrasonic oscillation unit comprises a first electrode layer, a first insulating layer, a second electrode layer, a second insulating layer, a plurality of capacitor protrusions, and a cavity located between the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer(¶¶ [0053]–[0055]; FIGS. 15–20; silicon layer 58, insulation 66, upper electrode 83, diaphragm 74, studs 76, cavity 64);
the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are located between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer(FIG. 20),
the capacitor protrusions are disposed in the cavity by being disposed on at least one of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer(¶ [0054]; studs 76 on diaphragm 74),
and a height of each of the capacitor protrusions is less than a height of the cavity(¶ [0006]; in-cavity element providing gap width less than the depth of the cavity).
Tian does not explicitly teach an ultrasonic probe comprising a hand-held casing having a first end and a second end; an acoustic lens disposed on the first end or the second end; and the ultrasonic transducer device disposed in the hand-held casing and located on one side of the hand-held casing adjacent to the acoustic lens.
However, Alie teaches an ultrasonic probe comprising a hand-held casing having a first end and a second end(¶ [0024]; FIG. 1, probe 100 encapsulated in a chassis with upper case 130 and lower case 131; FIG. 3 and ¶ [0039], ergonomically shaped probe maneuvered and positioned against the patient),
an acoustic lens disposed on the first end or the second end(¶¶ [0024], [0026]; FIGS. 1, 3, acoustic lens 150 at the patient-facing end),
and an ultrasonic transducer disposed in the hand-held casing and located on one side of the hand-held casing adjacent to the acoustic lens(¶¶ [0025]–[0026]; CMUT transducer arrangement 101 within the chassis, lens 150 disposed over its first surface; ¶ [0043], transducers arranged in rows and columns).
Tian and Alie are in the same field of capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers for medical imaging and address the same problem of delivering ultrasonic energy to and receiving echoes from a patient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package Tian’s cMUT array within Alie’s hand-held probe chassis behind Alie’s acoustic lens, in order to acoustically coupling the transducer to the patient while minimizing reflections from impedance mismatch and protecting the transducer from mechanical stress. The combination applies a known probe-packaging technique to a known cMUT array with predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3–7, 9-10, and 13–16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth above.
Regarding claim 3/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “the first capacitor protrusions are located on a first surface of the first insulating layer, the second capacitor protrusions are located on a second surface of the second insulating layer, and the first surface and the second surface are opposite to each other”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Claim 4 is objected to for being dependent on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the capacitor protrusions are located on a first surface of the first insulating layer, a second surface of the first insulating layer is connected to the first electrode layer, and the first surface and the second surface are located on two opposite sides of the first insulating layer”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to for being dependent on claim 5.
Regarding claim 9/8, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the second electrode layer comprises a plurality of electrode protrusions disposed corresponding to the capacitor protrusions and protruded from or recessed towards a surface of the second electrode layer”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein at least one of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer comprises a plurality of electrode protrusions disposed corresponding to the capacitor protrusions”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the cavity has a first region and a second region surrounding the first region; the protrusions are located in the second region”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Claims 14-16 are objected to for being dependent on claim 13.
Claims 19 and 20 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 19/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the cavity has a first region and a second region surrounding the first region; the capacitor protrusions are located in the second region”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Claim 20 is objected to for being dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
PATIL(US2016199030A1) is an application that teaches a dual-mode CMUT operable in a collapsed mode in which a DC bias collapses the central membrane region against the cell floor while peripheral regions vibrate under AC excitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights