Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/913,685

Method and Device for Driving a Beamforming Ultrasound Transducer Array, and Corresponding System

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 11, 2024
Priority
Oct 11, 2023 — EU 23202878.7
Examiner
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Stichting Imec Nederland
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allowance Rate
252 granted / 456 resolved
+3.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
505
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.8%
+15.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 456 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 9/14/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group 2 and group 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/14/2026. 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 2are 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. The limitations “especially” make it unclear if the condition is required by the claim or is not required because the word means particularly, mainly, markedly, notably, very much or the like. Dependent claims are rejected for failing to remedy the same issue. 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)(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haque (US 2021/0293952 A1). Regarding claim 1, Haque discloses a method for driving an ultrasound transducer array with beamforming capabilities with the aid of multiple channels, the method comprising the steps of [[abstract] ultrasonic transducer systems comprising: an ultrasonic imager comprising a plurality of pMUT transducer elements; [0006] transmit channel are delayed electronically relative to delay applied to other transmit channels driving]: generating a respective voltage wave signal with intermediate voltage steps and a certain duration A of the intermediate voltage steps for each of the multiple channels by correspondingly connecting the corresponding elements in the ultrasound transducer array to a supply voltage or ground [[fig. 39a] shows a multilevel voltage pulses with 0V, 6V, and 12V levels; [0215] transmit driver 3018 may be a multistage drive and may generate an output with two or more levels of a signaling. The signaling can be unipolar or bipolar; [0006] in some embodiments, a delay of pulse onset is electrically programmable. In some embodiments, one or more of pulses in the pulse sequence are electrically programmable. In some embodiments, a shape of the multilevel pulse is sinusoidal, digital square, or arbitrary; [0024] FIG. 9 shows an exemplary embodiment of a line transducer that shows multiple ground and biasing electrodes to enable differential poling directions per pMUT element; [0099] drive voltage reduces from 100V to 10V; [0118] first conductor during poling can be tied to ground potential, while the second conductor is tied to a negative potential, say −15V for a 1 μm thick PZT film, and the third electrode is tied at +15V], defining corresponding relative time delays among the multiple channels to be linear [[0006] control circuit is configured to electrically control relative delays to be piecewise linearly increasing or decreasing in a column, and wherein a number of piecewise linear delay segments is an integer that is no less than 2. In some embodiments, the control circuit is implemented on an ASIC. In some embodiments, the control circuit is configured to electrically control relative delays along a column to be a summation of a linear delay and an arbitrary, fine delay. In some embodiments, the linear delay and arbitrary fine delays of the column are independent from other linear delay and arbitrary fine delays of other columns of the ultrasonic transducer, thereby allowing for arbitrary steering and focusing in three dimensions], and defining phases with respect to the multiple channels such that a certain condition correlates the number of elements in the ultrasound transducer array with the number of generated phases [[fig. 18a] shows beamforming examples with four elements along with four different phases; [0238] arrays may include multiple line units, where each line unit includes a plurality of piezoelectric elements that are electrically coupled to each other. In embodiments, the line units may be driven with multiple pulses that have phase differences (or equivalently delays). By adjusting the phases, the resultant pressure waves may be steered at an angle, which is referred to as beamforming]. Regarding claim 2, Haque discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, especially in the context of the certain condition, the number of elements in the ultrasound transducer array is equal to an integer multiple k of the number of generated phases [[fig. 18a] shows beamforming examples with four elements along with four different phases]. 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. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (US 2021/0293952 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo (US 2015/0027228 A1). Regarding claim 11, Haque does not explicitly teach and yet Endo teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of: defining a time delay between the multiple channels to be an odd integer multiple or an even integer multiple of a minimum time delay between the multiple channels, especially the minimum time delay between the multiple channels [[0009] first scanning period, the first integrated circuit apparatus may transmit odd-numbered pulse signals, among 1st to kth pulse signals (where k is a natural number of 2 or more) to channel terminals belonging to the first channel terminal group, among 1st to kth channel terminals, and the second integrated circuit apparatus may transmit even-numbered pulse signals, among the 1st to kth pulse signals, to channel terminals belonging to the second channel terminal group; [0115] a delay is provided in the pulse signals P1 to P8 by transmission focusing control.]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the multilevel pulsing as taught by Haque, with the odd or even pulsing as taught by Endo so that sector scanning (phase scanning) may be performed (Endo) [[0120]]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm. 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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. /JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766571
ACOUSTIC DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12771996
REDUCING OR ELIMINATING TRANSDUCER REVERBERATION
1y 10m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12758189
ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER
7y 5m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12761352
ULTRASONIC RADAR SENSOR ASSEMBLY
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12748208
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SELECTION MANAGEMENT AND MAPPING ALGORITHM
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+3.5%)
3y 6m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 456 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month