DETAILED ACTION
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 12 and 13 are 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 claims are directed to both an apparatus and a method of using the apparatus. This renders the claim indefinite.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynier (2022/0314274) in view of Boulme (2024/0288579).
With respect to claim 1, Meynier teaches a CMUT comprising a first electrode (Fig 4: E2), a second electrode (Fig 4: E1), and a third electrode (Fig 4: E3), the first electrodes being used to receive a first reference voltage ([0076]), the second electrode being used to receive a first direct-current (DC) voltage ([0016], line 3; [0070], lines 3-4), the third electrode being used to receive a first alternating-current (AC) voltage ([0016], line 4; [0070], lines 4-5), the first DC voltage being different from the first reference voltage (The reference is at ground ([0076], line 6); therefore the applied DC voltage would necessarily be different), a first cavity being formed between the first electrodes and the second electrode ([0058], lines 3-4; Fig 4, 403). However, it does not teach a plurality of first capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers (CMUTs) arranged in M rows, M being an integer greater than 1, and a plurality of second CMUTs arranged in N columns, N being an integer greater than 1, the M rows being intersected with the N columns.
Boulme teaches a plurality of first capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers (CMUTs) arranged in M rows, M being an integer greater than 1, and a plurality of second CMUTs arranged in N columns, N being an integer greater than 1, the M rows being intersected with the N columns ([0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Maynier to be used in a matrix of CMUT transducers as taught by Boulme since such a modification would have allowed for beamforming operations which would improve accuracy and field of view.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 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
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights