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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 of US Application No. 18/956,708 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-18, canceled claim 9, and added claim 21.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 5-7, 9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 16, amended dependent claims 5 and 18, and canceled claim 9.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 12. However, new rejections under § 102 and/or § 103 are set forth below.
The previous rejections of claims 3, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 12. However, new rejections under § 103 are set forth below.
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, 2, 5, 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 2015/0135840 A1, “Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses methods and systems for coupling ultrasound and teaches:
a housing (chassis – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0135]);
an ultrasonic transducer secured within the housing (ultrasound transducer 305 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0135]);
a dampening barrier within the housing (couplant 308 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0135]; coupling component 1304, 1307, 1311, 1317 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]);
a retaining barrier secured within the housing (couplant 308 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0135]; coupling component 1305, 1308, 1315, 1318 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]), wherein the dampening barrier and the retaining barrier are formed of a solid material (solid coupling components – see at least ¶ [0125]); and
a liquid retention chamber within the housing between the ultrasonic transducer and the retaining barrier, wherein the liquid retention chamber retains a liquid (reservoirs 1302, 1309, 1313, 1319 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]; coupling components having a reservoir of liquid or non-solid gel between solid coupling components – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 2, Sato further teaches:
wherein a delay line is defined between the dampening barrier, the liquid within liquid retention chamber, and the retaining barrier (e.g., delay line A = 1304+1302+1305 – see at least Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Sato further teaches:
wherein the dampening barrier abuts the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 8, Sato further teaches:
wherein the retaining barrier retains the liquid within the liquid retention chamber (reservoirs 1302, 1309, 1313, 1319 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]; coupling components having a reservoir of liquid or non-solid gel between solid coupling components – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 21, Sato further teaches:
wherein the dampening barrier is configured to provide dampening in relation to the ultrasonic transducer, and wherein the dampening barrier is configured to dampen motion of the ultrasonic transducer during operation (coupling components 1304, 1307, 1311, 1317 are disposed abutting the transducer and between the transducer and the object to be tested – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer et al. (US 2007/0175282 A1, “Fetzer”) in view of Sato et al. (US 2015/0135840 A1, “Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Fetzer discloses a thin-film ultrasonic probe having a flexible membrane and teaches:
a housing (body 14 having sides 22, ends 24, and base 28 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0032]);
an ultrasonic transducer secured within the housing (transducer 30 attached to body 14 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0017], [0059]);
[ ];
a retaining barrier secured within the housing, wherein [ ] the retaining barrier are formed of a solid material (membrane 40 mounted to body 14 – see at least 2 and ¶ [0019]); and
a liquid retention chamber within the housing between the ultrasonic transducer and the retaining barrier (chamber 52 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0020]), wherein the liquid retention chamber retains a liquid (delay fluid 54 is circulated through chamber 52 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020]).
Fetzer fails to teach a dampening barrier within the housing; wherein the dampening barrier are formed of a solid material.
However, Sato discloses methods and systems for coupling ultrasound and teaches:
an ultrasonic transducer (transducer 1301, 1306, 1310, 1316 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]);
a dampening barrier (coupling component 1304, 1307, 1311, 1317 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]);
a retaining barrier secured within the housing (coupling component 1305, 1308, 1315, 1318 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]), wherein the dampening barrier and the retaining barrier are formed of a solid material (solid coupling components – see at least ¶ [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer to provide a dampening barrier, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a couplant assembly having an upper barrier and lower barrier, i.e., dampening barrier and retaining barrier, that form an enclosed reservoir could be removed and replaced without leaving couplant residue that must be cleaned (Sato at ¶ [0007], [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein a delay line is defined between [ ] the liquid within liquid retention chamber, and the retaining barrier (delay fluid 54 and membrane 40 constitute a delay line or spacer 56 – see at least ¶ [0020]).
Sato further teaches:
wherein a delay line is defined between the dampening barrier, the liquid within liquid retention chamber, and the retaining barrier (e.g., delay line A = 1304+1302+1305 – see at least Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer and Sato to provide a delay line including the dampening barrier, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because couplants that include one or more reservoirs, which define the delay line, efficiently transmit ultrasound energy (Sato at ¶ [0117]).
Regarding claim 4, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the housing is configured to slide over a surface of a component (probe 10 may slide across part 12 – see at least ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Sato further teaches:
wherein the dampening barrier abuts the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer and Sato to provide the barrier abutting the transducer, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the couplant will efficiently transmit ultrasound energy (Sato at ¶ [0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Fetzer further teaches:
an outer wall barrier [ ], wherein the outer wall barrier connects to internal surfaces of the housing (membrane 40 forms a chamber 52 by sealing against sides of base opening 30 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0019]).
Sato further teaches:
an outer wall barrier connected to the dampening barrier (couplant assembly may be cylindrical, cubic, rectangular, etc. – see at least ¶ [0109]; coupling components having a reservoir of liquid or non-solid gel between solid coupling components – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer and Sato to connect the outer wall and dampening barriers, as further taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a couplant assembly that forms an enclosed reservoir could be removed and replaced without leaving couplant residue that must be cleaned (Sato at ¶ [0007], [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Sato further teaches:
wherein the retaining barrier is connected to the outer wall barrier, wherein the dampening barrier, the outer wall barrier, and the retaining barrier form a closed retainer that provides the liquid retention chamber (couplant assembly may be cylindrical, cubic, rectangular, etc. – see at least ¶ [0109]; coupling components having a reservoir of liquid or non-solid gel between solid coupling components – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer and Sato to connect the outer wall and retaining barriers, as further taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a couplant assembly that forms an enclosed reservoir could be removed and replaced without leaving couplant residue that must be cleaned (Sato at ¶ [0007], [0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the retaining barrier retains the liquid within the liquid retention chamber (membrane 40 forms a chamber 52 by sealing against sides of base opening 30 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the housing comprises a retaining recess at a distal end (recess 74 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0022]), wherein the retaining recess is configured to retain another liquid outside of the liquid retention chamber (coupling fluid 88 delivered to recess 74 – see Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the liquid retention chamber is fully-filled with the liquid (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Fetzer discloses a thin-film ultrasonic probe having a flexible membrane and teaches:
A method for a system comprising: a housing; an ultrasonic transducer secured within the housing; a dampening barrier within the housing; a retaining barrier secured within the housing, wherein the dampening barrier and the retaining barrier are formed of a solid material; and a liquid retention chamber within the housing between the ultrasonic transducer and the retaining barrier, wherein the liquid retention chamber retains a liquid, and wherein a delay line is defined between the dampening barrier, the liquid within liquid retention chamber, and the retaining barrier (see claim 1 and 2 rejections above),
the method comprising: emitting, by the ultrasonic transducer, ultrasonic signals into and through the delay line toward and into a component (ultrasonic waves generated by transducer 32 propagated through first volume couplant and membrane 48 – see at least ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 14, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the liquid is liquid water (delay fluid is water – see at least ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Fetzer further teaches:
sliding the housing is over a surface of a component (probe 10 may slide across part 12 – see at least ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 21, Sato further teaches:
wherein the dampening barrier is configured to provide dampening in relation to the ultrasonic transducer, and wherein the dampening barrier is configured to dampen motion of the ultrasonic transducer during operation (coupling components 1304, 1307, 1311, 1317 are disposed abutting the transducer and between the transducer and the object to be tested – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer and Sato to provide the dampening barrier, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the couplant will efficiently transmit ultrasound energy (Sato at ¶ [0117]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer in view Sato, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Pfortje et al. (US 2018/0284072 A1, “Pfortje”).
Regarding claim 3, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the liquid is liquid water (delay fluid is water – see at least ¶ [0020]).
Sato further teaches:
wherein the solid material is [ ] a solid polymer having characteristics of water, but in solid form, [ ], and wherein the liquid is liquid water (non-solid material within the couplant assembly may be liquid, such as water – see at least ¶ [0117]; couplant assembly may be a gel composed of polymers – see at least ¶ [0040]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer and Sato to provide the solid material as a solid polymer, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the polymer may be shaped or molded to conform to the shape of the test subject (Sato at ¶ [0041], [0061]).
Sato fails to teach but Pfortie discloses coupling for ultrasonic inspection of pipes and teaches:
wherein the solid material is hard water, wherein the hard water is a solid polymer having characteristics of water, but in solid form, wherein the hard water is not ice, wherein the hard water mimics a water column, but without the use of liquid water (membrane material may be Aqualine – see at least ¶ [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe having a flexible membrane of Fetzer and Sato to provide a hard water material as the membrane, i.e., solid material, as taught by Pfortje, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the hard water membrane would minimize reflections and absorptions at interfaces between the membrane and couplant (Pfortje at ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Fetzer fails to teach but Pfortje discloses coupling for ultrasonic inspection of pipes and teaches:
wherein the solid material is hard water (membrane material may be Aqualine – see at least ¶ [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe having a flexible membrane of Fetzer and Sato to provide a hard water material as the membrane, i.e., solid material, as taught by Pfortje, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the hard water membrane would minimize reflections and absorptions at interfaces between the membrane and couplant (Pfortje at ¶ [0041]).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer in view of Sato and Pfortje.
Regarding claim 16, Fetzer discloses a thin-film ultrasonic probe having a flexible membrane and teaches:
a housing configured to slide over a surface of a component (body 14 having sides 22, ends 24, and base 28 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0032]; probe 10 may slide across part 12 – see at least ¶ [0016]);
an ultrasonic transducer secured within the housing (transducer 30 attached to body 14 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0017], [0059]);
[ ];
a retaining barrier secured within the housing, [ ] (membrane 40 mounted to body 14 – see at least 2 and ¶ [0019]); and
a liquid retention chamber within the housing between the ultrasonic transducer and the retaining barrier (chamber 52 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0020]), wherein the liquid retention chamber retains liquid water (delay fluid 54 is circulated through chamber 52 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020]; delay fluid is water – see at least ¶ [0020]), and
wherein a delay line is defined between [the dampening barrier,] the liquid water within liquid retention chamber, and the retaining barrier (delay fluid 54 and membrane 40 constitute a delay line or spacer 56 – see at least ¶ [0020]).
Fetzer fails to teach a dampening barrier within the housing; wherein the dampening barrier and the retaining barrier are formed of hard water; wherein a delay line is defined by the dampening barrier.
However, Sato discloses methods and systems for coupling ultrasound and teaches:
an ultrasonic transducer (transducer 1301, 1306, 1310, 1316 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]);
a dampening barrier (coupling component 1304, 1307, 1311, 1317 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]);
a retaining barrier (coupling component 1305, 1308, 1315, 1318 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0125]);
wherein a delay line is defined between the dampening barrier, the liquid within liquid retention chamber, and the retaining barrier (e.g., delay line A = 1304+1302+1305 – see at least Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer to provide a dampening barrier, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a couplant assembly having an upper barrier and lower barrier, i.e., dampening barrier and retaining barrier, that form an enclosed reservoir could be removed and replaced without leaving couplant residue that must be cleaned (Sato at ¶ [0007], [0012]).
It would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer and Sato to provide a delay line including the dampening barrier, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because couplants that include one or more reservoirs, which define the delay line, efficiently transmit ultrasound energy (Sato at ¶ [0117]).
Further, Pfortje discloses coupling for ultrasonic inspection of pipes and teaches:
wherein the dampening barrier and the retaining barrier are formed of hard water (membrane material may be Aqualine – see at least ¶ [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe having a flexible membrane of Fetzer and Sato to provide a hard water material as the membrane, i.e., solid material, as taught by Pfortje, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the hard water membrane would minimize reflections and absorptions at interfaces between the membrane and couplant (Pfortje at ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the retaining barrier retains the liquid within the liquid retention chamber (membrane 40 forms a chamber 52 by sealing against sides of base opening 30 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Sato further teaches:
wherein the dampening barrier abuts the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined thin-film ultrasonic probe of Fetzer, Sato, and Pfortie to provide the barrier abutting the transducer, as further taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the couplant will efficiently transmit ultrasound energy (Sato at ¶ [0117]).
Regarding claim 19, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the housing comprises a retaining recess at a distal end (recess 74 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0022]), wherein the retaining recess is configured to retain another liquid outside of the liquid retention chamber (coupling fluid 88 delivered to recess 74 – see Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Fetzer further teaches:
wherein the liquid retention chamber is fully-filled with the liquid (see Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights