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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed reply filled on 06/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the current application. The amendments to the claims have overcome the claims’ objections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawaji et al. (US 2022/0389192).
Regarding claim 1, Kawaji teaches an ultrasound probe, comprising (fig. 1, para. 0123; As shown in FIG. 1, ultrasound transducer 100 has backing material 110, electrical terminal extraction section 120, piezoelectric material 130, acoustic matching layer 140, and acoustic lens 150.):
an ultrasound transducer element (fig. 1, para. 0123; As shown in FIG. 1, ultrasound transducer 100 has backing material 110, electrical terminal extraction section 120, piezoelectric material 130, acoustic matching layer 140, and acoustic lens 150.); and
an acoustic matching layer provided on the ultrasound transducer element (fig. 1, para. 0138; acoustic matching layer 140 includes the above-described acoustic member. Acoustic matching layer 140 is a layer disposed on piezoelectric material 130 (in the present embodiment, on signal electrode 160b of piezoelectric material 130) to match the acoustic characteristics between piezoelectric material 130 and acoustic lens 150.),
wherein the resin-composition acoustic matching layer includes resin and inorganic material particles (para. 0025; a resin composition used for an acoustic member included in an ultrasound transducer, which will be mentioned later. The resin composition according to one embodiment of the present invention comprises a thermosetting resin and two or more types of particles dispersed in the thermosetting resin.),
wherein the acoustic matching layer satisfies 2.3 ≤ Z/√ρ ≤ 3.4 where Z denotes an acoustic impedance of the acoustic matching layer, whereas and p denotes a density of the inorganic material particles (paras. 0073 and 0106; the heavy particles preferably have a density of 3.0 g/cm.sup.3 or more and 10.0 g/cm.sup.3 or less. The acoustic impedance of the acoustic member according to the present embodiment is preferably 1.7 MRayls or more and 15.0 MRayls or less, and more preferably 2.5 MRayls or more and 4.5 MRayls or less. The examiner notes that the density of the material effects the impedance of the matching layer, therefore a material with density of 3.5 would result in impedance of 4.5 MRayls which satisfies 2.3 ≤ 4.5/√3.5 ≤ 3.4.), and
wherein the acoustic matching layer is directly laminated to a layer adjacent to the acoustic matching layer on a side of the acoustic matching layer facing the ultrasound transducer element, with no adhesive agent interposed between the acoustic matching layer and the layer adjacent to the acoustic matching layer (paras. 0114, 0160, and 0191; As a result of this, a variety of acoustic members can be laminated without using adhesives, which can thus make attenuation of ultrasound due to adhesives less likely to occur. The resin composition may be applied directly to piezoelectric material 130 and subsequently cured to form the acoustic matching layer. The examiner notes that different layers of acoustic matching layers are applied on top of each other without using adhesive and then directly applied to the ultrasound transducer using coating with applicator).
Regarding claim 2, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic material particles are ceramic particles (para. 0070; Examples of such a heavy particle material include ferrite, tungsten oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, and zirconium oxide. The examiner notes that aluminum oxide is a type of an inorganic material ceramic particle).
Regarding claim 3, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein Z is in a range of 3.0 MRayl to 15 MRayl, inclusive (para. 0106; The acoustic impedance of the acoustic member according to the present embodiment is preferably 1.7 MRayls or more and 15.0 MRayls or less, and more preferably 2.5 MRayls or more and 4.5 MRayls or less.).
Regarding claim 4, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein a particle diameter distribution of an average particle diameter of the ceramic particles is a unimodal distribution (para. 0079; The particle diameter at which the cumulative value in the particle size distribution on a volume basis is 50% (d.sub.50) of the heavy particles, obtained by the above-described measurement method, is not particularly limited, and it is preferable that the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of 22.5 μm or less, it is preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.5 μm or more and 22.5 μm or less, it is more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.8 μm or more and 20.0 μm or less, it is still more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 15.0 μm or less, and it is particularly preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 14.0 μm or less. When the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of 0.5 μm or more, the applicability of the resin composition can be further enhanced, and when they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 22.5 μm or less, the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition can be further enhanced. Also, when the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of in the above-described range, the acoustic impedance of the cured product can be easily adjusted. When the cured product of the resin composition is used as the acoustic matching layer, it is preferable that the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 of 22.5 μm or less from the viewpoint of making it difficult for the ultrasound to be attenuated. The examiner notes that the mean diameter of the particles is 0.5 μm or more and most of the particle sizes are around this diameter value.).
Regarding claim 5, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein a content amount of the ceramic particles in a resin composition of the acoustic matching layer is in a range of 20% by volume to 40% by volume, inclusive (para. 0080; The content of the heavy particles is not particularly limited, and is preferably 1 vol % or more and 30 vol % or less, more preferably 5 vol % or more and 20 vol % or less, and still more preferably 5 vol % or more and 15 vol % or less relative to the entire volume of the cured resin composition. When the above-described content is 1 vol % or more, it is possible to make hindered sedimentation with the light particles likely to occur, and when the content is 30 vol % or less, it is possible to make the heavy particles unlikely to sediment. The examiner notes that the content of the heavy particles can be 20% by volume.).
Regarding claim 6, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein an average particle diameter of the ceramic particles is in a range of 0.3 μm to 2 μm, inclusive (para. 0079; it is preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.5 μm or more and 22.5 μm or less, it is more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.8 μm or more and 20.0 μm or less, it is still more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 15.0 μm or less, and it is particularly preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 14.0 μm or less. The examiner notes that the average particle diameter is 0.05 μm).
Regarding claim 7, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein the ceramic particles contain a substance comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of Mg, Ca, Ba, B, Al, Y, Hf, Ce, Ti, W, and Si and at least one selected from a group consisting of O, C, N, and S (para. 0070; Examples of such a heavy particle material include ferrite, tungsten oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, and zirconium oxide. Among these, from the viewpoint of further enhancing the dispersibility in the thermosetting resin, the heavy particle material is preferably a metal oxide, and from the viewpoint of further enhancing the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition, it is more preferably ferrite or tungsten oxide, and still more preferably ferrite. The examiner notes that the ceramic particles may contain, for example aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 8, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein the ceramic particles include, in an amount of 5% by volume or less, particles of which particles diameters are in a range of 2.0 μm to 0.005 μm, inclusive (paras. 0079-0080; it is preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.5 μm or more and 22.5 μm or less, it is more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.8 μm or more and 20.0 μm or less, it is still more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 15.0 μm or less, and it is particularly preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 14.0 μm or less. The content of the heavy particles is not particularly limited, and is preferably 1 vol % or more and 30 vol % or less, more preferably 5 vol % or more and 20 vol % or less, and still more preferably 5 vol % or more and 15 vol % or less relative to the entire volume of the cured resin composition.).
Regarding claim 9, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the resin is epoxy resin (para. 0027; The thermosetting resin is a resin that is cured by heating. Examples of the thermosetting resin include epoxy resins, urethane resins, and silicone resins. Among these, it is preferable that the thermosetting resin comprises an epoxy resin. When the thermosetting resin comprises an epoxy resin, it is possible to prevent warpage deformation or breakage of a cured product of the resin composition (hereinafter, simply referred to as the “cured product”) due to shrinkage of the resin composition during curing, while enhancing the chemical resistance of the ultrasound probe during cleaning.).
Regarding claim 10, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 9, wherein a resin composition of the acoustic matching layer further includes a thermosetting resin as a curing agent for the epoxy resin (para. 0027; The thermosetting resin is a resin that is cured by heating. Examples of the thermosetting resin include epoxy resins, urethane resins, and silicone resins. Among these, it is preferable that the thermosetting resin comprise an epoxy resin. When the thermosetting resin comprises an epoxy resin, it is possible to prevent warpage deformation or breakage of a cured product of the resin composition (hereinafter, simply referred to as the “cured product”) due to shrinkage of the resin composition during curing, while enhancing the chemical resistance of the ultrasound probe during cleaning.).
Regarding claim 11, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 2, wherein the ceramic particles are aluminum oxide particles (para. 0070; Examples of such a heavy particle material include ferrite, tungsten oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, and zirconium oxide. Among these, from the viewpoint of further enhancing the dispersibility in the thermosetting resin, the heavy particle material is preferably a metal oxide, and from the viewpoint of further enhancing the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition, it is more preferably ferrite or tungsten oxide, and still more preferably ferrite.).
Regarding claim 13, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic material particles are metal particles (para. 0070; Examples of such a heavy particle material include ferrite, tungsten oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, and zirconium oxide. Among these, from the viewpoint of further enhancing the dispersibility in the thermosetting resin, the heavy particle material is preferably a metal oxide, and from the viewpoint of further enhancing the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition, it is more preferably ferrite or tungsten oxide, and still more preferably ferrite. The examiner notes that the heavy material particles may include metal oxide such as tungsten oxide or ferrite.); and
the acoustic matching layer satisfies 2.3 ≤ Z/√ρ ≤ 2.9 where Z denotes the acoustic impedance of the acoustic matching layer, and ρ denotes the density of the metal particles (paras. 0073 and 0106; the heavy particles preferably have a density of 3.0 g/cm.sup.3 or more and 10.0 g/cm.sup.3 or less. The acoustic impedance of the acoustic member according to the present embodiment is preferably 1.7 MRayls or more and 15.0 MRayls or less, and more preferably 2.5 MRayls or more and 4.5 MRayls or less. The examiner notes that the density of the material effects the impedance of the matching layer, therefore a material with density of 3.5 would result in impedance of 4.5 MRayls which satisfies 2.3 ≤ 4.5/√3.5 ≤ 2.9).
Regarding claim 14, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 13, wherein a particle diameter distribution of an average particle diameter of the metal particles is a unimodal distribution (para. 0079; The particle diameter at which the cumulative value in the particle size distribution on a volume basis is 50% (d.sub.50) of the heavy particles, obtained by the above-described measurement method, is not particularly limited, and it is preferable that the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of 22.5 μm or less, it is preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.5 μm or more and 22.5 μm or less, it is more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.8 μm or more and 20.0 μm or less, it is still more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 15.0 μm or less, and it is particularly preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 14.0 μm or less. When the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of 0.5 μm or more, the applicability of the resin composition can be further enhanced, and when they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 22.5 μm or less, the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition can be further enhanced. Also, when the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of in the above-described range, the acoustic impedance of the cured product can be easily adjusted. When the cured product of the resin composition is used as the acoustic matching layer, it is preferable that the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 of 22.5 μm or less from the viewpoint of making it difficult for the ultrasound to be attenuated. The examiner notes that the mean diameter of the particles is 0.5 μm or more and most of the particle sizes are around this diameter value.).
Regarding claim 15, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 13, wherein a content amount of the metal particles in a resin composition of the acoustic matching layer is in a range of 20% by volume to 40% by volume, inclusive (para. 0080; The content of the heavy particles is not particularly limited, and is preferably 1 vol % or more and 30 vol % or less, more preferably 5 vol % or more and 20 vol % or less, and still more preferably 5 vol % or more and 15 vol % or less relative to the entire volume of the cured resin composition. When the above-described content is 1 vol % or more, it is possible to make hindered sedimentation with the light particles likely to occur, and when the content is 30 vol % or less, it is possible to make the heavy particles unlikely to sediment. The examiner notes that the content of the heavy particles can be 20% by volume.).
Regarding claim 16, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 13, wherein an average particle diameter of the metal particles is in a range of 1.0 μm to 4 μm, inclusive (para. 0079; The particle diameter at which the cumulative value in the particle size distribution on a volume basis is 50% (d.sub.50) of the heavy particles, obtained by the above-described measurement method, is not particularly limited, and it is preferable that the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of 22.5 μm or less, it is preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.5 μm or more and 22.5 μm or less, it is more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.8 μm or more and 20.0 μm or less, it is still more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 15.0 μm or less, and it is particularly preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 14.0 μm or less. When the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of 0.5 μm or more, the applicability of the resin composition can be further enhanced, and when they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 22.5 μm or less, the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition can be further enhanced. Also, when the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 described above of in the above-described range, the acoustic impedance of the cured product can be easily adjusted. When the cured product of the resin composition is used as the acoustic matching layer, it is preferable that the heavy particles include particles having a d.sub.50 of 22.5 μm or less from the viewpoint of making it difficult for the ultrasound to be attenuated.).
Regarding claim 17, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 13, wherein the metal particles contain a substance comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of Au, Ag, Pt, Cu, Cr, Zr, Zn, Ta, Ti, Mg, Ni, Ca, Ba, Al, Y, Hf, Ce, Mo, W, Si, Pd, Ir, Sn, Fe, Pb, Pd, and Nd (para. 0070; Examples of such a heavy particle material include ferrite, tungsten oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, and zirconium oxide. Among these, from the viewpoint of further enhancing the dispersibility in the thermosetting resin, the heavy particle material is preferably a metal oxide, and from the viewpoint of further enhancing the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition, it is more preferably ferrite or tungsten oxide, and still more preferably ferrite.).
Regarding claim 18, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 13, wherein the metal particles include, in an amount of 5% by volume or less, particles of which particles diameters are in a range of 2.0 μm to 0.005 μm, inclusive (paras. 0079-0080; it is preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.5 μm or more and 22.5 μm or less, it is more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 0.8 μm or more and 20.0 μm or less, it is still more preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 15.0 μm or less, and it is particularly preferable that they include particles having a d.sub.50 of 1.0 μm or more and 14.0 μm or less. The content of the heavy particles is not particularly limited, and is preferably 1 vol % or more and 30 vol % or less, more preferably 5 vol % or more and 20 vol % or less, and still more preferably 5 vol % or more and 15 vol % or less relative to the entire volume of the cured resin composition.).
Regarding claim 19, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 13, wherein the metal particles are one selected from copper and tungsten (para. 0070; Examples of such a heavy particle material include ferrite, tungsten oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, and zirconium oxide. Among these, from the viewpoint of further enhancing the dispersibility in the thermosetting resin, the heavy particle material is preferably a metal oxide, and from the viewpoint of further enhancing the cutting processability of the cured product of the resin composition, it is more preferably ferrite or tungsten oxide, and still more preferably ferrite.).
Regarding claim 20, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the layer adjacent to the acoustic matching layer on the side of the acoustic matching layer facing the ultrasound transducer element is the ultrasound transducer element (fig. 1, para. 0160; the resin composition may be applied directly to piezoelectric material 130 and subsequently cured to form the acoustic matching layer.).
Regarding claim 21, Kawaji teaches the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, wherein the ultrasound probe comprises a plurality of acoustic matching layers, and the layer adjacent to the acoustic matching layer on the side of the acoustic matching layer facing the ultrasound transducer element is another acoustic matching layer among the plurality of acoustic matching layers (fig. 1, para. 0138; Acoustic matching layer 140 may be constituted by a single layer, but it is normally constituted by multiple layers with different acoustic impedances. The number of layers in the acoustic matching layer is not particularly limited, and the acoustic matching layer is preferably constituted by two or more layers, and more preferably constituted by four or more layers. As shown in FIG. 1, in the present embodiment, acoustic matching layer 140 is a laminate that comprises first acoustic matching layer 140a, second acoustic matching layer 140b, third acoustic matching layer 140c, and fourth acoustic matching layer 140d.).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaji et al. (US 2022/0389192) in the view of Hamada et al. (US 2022/0125404).
Regarding claim 12, Kawaji teaches the resin composition according to claim 2, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the ceramics particles are realized with tungsten carbide.
Hamada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the inorganic particles are realized with tungsten carbide (table 1; WC: Uniform particle tungsten carbide powder (particle diameter: 9 μm, specific gravity: 15.6, manufactured by A.L.M.T. Corp.).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to substitute the ceramic particle type (Aluminum oxide) of Kawaji with the tungsten carbide of Hamada because both are known inorganic particles suitable to be incorporated in a resin mixture, and the selection of the particle type would have been understood to depend on the desired acoustic properties of the resulting acoustic matching layer. In particular tungsten carbide has a substantially greater density than, for example, aluminum oxide and therefore would have been a predictable alternative where increased density and/or acoustic impedance of the resin composition is desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 35 USC 102 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of the amendments because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 ZAINAB M ALDARRAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-8726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday7AM-5PM EST.
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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/ZAINAB MOHAMMED ALDARRAJI/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights