CTNF 18/961,664 CTNF 90846 DETAILED ACTION Non-Final Rejection Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Benefit of an Earlier Filing 02-27 Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (JP) 2022-104704 filed on 29 th June, 2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2025, 03/04/2026, 01/27/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 “(a)(1)” or “(a)(2)” or both as being anticipated by Applicant presented Prior Art in IDS, NAKAI (US 2018/0344287 A1) Referring to Claim 1, NAKAI teaches an acoustic wave probe ([0002]: acoustic wave probe; [0213]; [0215]: ultrasound probe 10 ) comprising: a substrate ([0215]: piezoelectric element layer 3 ; wherein, it is the examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation that piezoelectric element layer comprises a substrate); an interlayer on the substrate ([0225]: acoustic matching layer 2 ); an acoustic lens layer on the interlayer ([0228]: acoustic lens 1 ), wherein the interlayer is a layer containing a siloxane compound ([0016]; [0226]: acoustic matching layer of the present invention preferably contains 10 mass % or more of a silicone resin), the siloxane compound has a constitutional component derived from a hydrolyzed silicate compound ([0118]; [0135]), and the acoustic lens layer is a layer obtained by curing room temperature-curable silicone ([0177]), in which the room temperature-curable silicone includes a constitutional unit having a phenyl group ([0075]: examples of the aryl group include a phenyl group). Referring to Claim 8, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is a substrate in which a surface on a side of the interlayer has been subjected to a hydrophilization treatment ([0163]-[0164]). Referring to Claim 9, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 8, wherein the substrate is a substrate in which the surface on the side of the interlayer has been subjected to at least one treatment of an ultraviolet treatment, an ozone treatment, a plasma treatment, or a corona treatment ([0163]-[0164]). Referring to Claim 10, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 1, wherein the interlayer includes a constitutional component derived from at least one of a silane coupling agent, a titanium alkoxide compound, an aluminum alkoxide compound, or a zirconium alkoxide compound ([0135]-[0140]). Referring to Claim 11, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 1, wherein the room temperature-curable silicone is a silicone composition containing vinyl silicone and hydrosilicone ([0275]). Referring to Claim 12, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 11, wherein the silicone composition contains surface-treated oxide particles ([0122]-[0132]; Claim(s) 1-2). Referring to Claim 13, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 12, wherein the silicone composition contains surface-treated spherical silica particles ([0122]-[0132]; Claim(s) 1-2). Referring to Claim 14, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic wave probe is an ultrasound probe (Fig. 1; [0002]: acoustic wave probe; [0213]; [0215]: ultrasound probe 10 ). Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to an acoustic wave measurement apparatus comprising: the acoustic wave probe according to claim 1. Therefore Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above. Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus of Claim 1 comprising: the acoustic wave probe according to claim 14. Therefore Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAI, as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view of Applicant presented Prior Art in IDS, MORITA (US 2014/0249419 A1) . Referring to Claim 2, NAKAI teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the substrate contains at least one of iron, a nonferrous metal, an inorganic material other than metal, or an organic material. MORITA the substrate contains at least one of iron, a nonferrous metal, an inorganic material other than metal, or an organic material ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the acoustic wave probe disclosed in NAKAI with the substrate taught in MORITA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided acoustic impedance matching as taught by MORITA ([0052]) Referring to Claim 3, MORITA teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 2, wherein the nonferrous metal includes at least one of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, nickel, copper, lead, zinc, tin, chromium, tungsten, cobalt, or an alloy of at least two of these metals ([0053]). Referring to Claim 4, MORITA teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 2, wherein the inorganic material other than metal includes at least one of glass, ceramics, or graphite ([0053]). Referring to Claim 5, MORITA teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 2, wherein the organic material includes at least one of a thermoplastic resin or a thermosetting resin ([0053]). Referring to Claim 6, MORITA teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 5, wherein the thermoplastic resin includes at least one of an acrylic resin, a polycarbonate resin, a styrene-based resin, or a polyphenylene sulfide resin ([0053]). Referring to Claim 7, MORITA teaches the acoustic wave probe according to claim 5, wherein the thermoplastic resin is a crosslinked thermoplastic resin ([0053]). Examiner’s Note Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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 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://pair-direct.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/961,664 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/961,664 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/961,664 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/961,664 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/961,664 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/961,664 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/961,664 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645
