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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs 6A – 6D do not provide useful information to understand the claimed invention. The x-axis and y-axis of above figures are not labeled with any legends and units to explain what the data in the chart mean.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 – 12 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 term “heavy backing layer” in claim 1 – 7, 9 and 11 is a subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide objective standard (see specification of present application [0039], [0051] – [0056], only thickness about the heavy backing layer is disclosed but thickness is another different category from the heavy in physics) to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). See MPEP 2173.05(b) IV.
Thus, the above limitation is a subjective term which renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation “heavy backing layer” is interpreted as any reasonable backing structure.
Claim 1 recites limitation “backing layer”, and claim 1 – 7, 9 and 11 recite limitation “heavy backing layer”. The language used to describe the above two limitations does not distinguish from each other, since heavy backing layer is also a backing layer. It is unclear the claimed two limitations are referring to two structurally different layers or not, further clarification is suggested to add to each limitation to prevent ambiguity.
Thus, the above limitations render claims indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitations are interpreted as two different layers.
Thus, claim 1 – 7, 9, 11 and all other corresponding dependent claim 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being 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.
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.
Claim 1 – 8 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaggares et al. (US 2024/0017294 A1; published on 01/18/2024) (hereinafter "Chaggares") in view of Ma et al. (CN 117018479 A; published on 11/10/2023) (hereinafter "Ma").
Regarding claim 1, Chaggares teaches an ultrasonic transducer unit ("The ultrasonic transducer 100 generally includes …" [0265]; see Fig.1C), comprising
a backing layer ("De-matching layers are another common backing technology ..." [0257]; "The backing structure 108 illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 6 includes … second dual layer de-matching backing 116." [0270]);
a heavy backing layer ("De-matching layers are another common backing technology ..." [0257]; "… a first dual layer de-matching backing 110 …" [0270]);
a piezoelectric layer ("… a piezoelectric material 102 …" [0265]); and
a matching layer ("… a piezoelectric acoustic transducer can include … matching layer(s) ..." [0252]; "… the first matching layer bonded to the distal face of the piezo composite layer …" [0306]),
wherein the backing layer, the heavy backing layer, the piezoelectric layer and the matching layer are stacked in sequence (see the stacking in Fig.1C; in addition, the matching layer is on the distal face of the piezo layer);
a thickness of the piezoelectric layer ranges from 0.125 times of a wavelength to 0.25 times of the wavelength, excluding 0.25 times of the wavelength ("As one skilled in the art will understand, the thickness of the piezoelectric disc is chosen to be thinner than ½ lambda to compensate for the mass loading effect of the DLDB backing and acoustic loads." [0300]; the thickness of piezoelectric layer is selectable according to the mass loading of backing structure, this limitation would be obvious with designer’s choice through routine experiments, since Chaggares teaches the relationship between the thickness of piezo layer and the mass loading of backing structure);
a contact surface between the heavy backing layer and the piezoelectric layer ("The backing structure 108 is positioned at the back surface 106 of the piezoelectric material 102." [0270]) is defined as a nodal plane of vibration ("The piezoelectric material 102 ... an acoustic impedance of about 27.5 MegaRayls." [0266]; "The first dual layer de-matching backing 110 includes ... the layer of tungsten 114 has an acoustic impedance of about 100 MegaRayls ..." [0271]; nodal plane means the displacement is very low, this is inherent result of different acoustic impedance of piezo layer and de-matching layer; "Furthermore, the presence of alternating, highly acoustically mis-matched ¼ wave layers of the DLDB results in each layer resonating and redistributing the acoustic energy that enters that layer at very low amplitude over a very long timeframe." [0370]); and
when the piezoelectric layer vibrates, a displacement of the contact surface in a vibration direction is zero (this is the definition of nodal plane, see citations and discussion above), and the wavelength refers to a wavelength of a wave at a center frequency of the ultrasonic transducer unit in the piezoelectric layer (this is the definition of center frequency, see also "… lambda at 680 kHz, the centre frequency of the transducer." [0220]; lambda is referred to centre frequency).
In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Ma teaches similar stacked structure of ultrasound transducer (see Fig.1 and [0045]), and
a thickness of the piezoelectric layer ranges from 0.125 times of a wavelength to 0.25 times of the wavelength, excluding 0.25 times of the wavelength ("Preferably, the thickness of the high-frequency piezoelectric layer is 0.2-0.8 times the wavelength of the ultrasonic wave of the high-frequency piezoelectric layer, and the wavelength is the wavelength of the high-frequency ultrasonic wave in each material ..." [0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stacked structure as taught by Chaggares with the selection of thickness of layer in the stacked structure as taught by Ma. By adjusting the layer according to different structure components, it is possible "to compensate for the mass loading effect of the DLDB backing and acoustic loads" (see Chaggares; [0300]).
Regarding claim 2, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Ma further teaches wherein a thickness of the heavy backing layer ranges from five times of the wavelength to ten times of the wavelength ("When the anti-matching layer has an N-layer structure ..." [0026]; "The thickness of each layer of the anti-matching layer is 0.01-0.4 times the wavelength of the ultrasonic wave of each anti-matching layer …" [0028]; when N is greater than 13, the thickness is greater than 5.2 times wavelength).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stacked structure as taught by Chaggares with the selection of thickness of layer in the stacked structure as taught by Ma. By applying multi-layer backing structure, it is possible to improve “the reflectivity of low-frequency ultrasonic waves, so that more low-frequency ultrasonic energy can be emitted, improving the emission efficiency of low-frequency ultrasonic energy and reducing the risk of The heating condition of the ultrasonic transducer extends the service life of the ultrasonic transducer" (see Ma; [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Chaggares further teaches wherein a thickness of the heavy backing layer ranges from 0.25 times of the wavelength to 1.25 times of the wavelength ("The first and second backing layers of the DLDB can be designed to be about ¼ lambda thickness for the designed resonant frequency of the piezoelectric element." [0285]).
Regarding claim 4, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Chaggares further teaches wherein the heavy backing layer has an acoustic impedance greater than an acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric layer ("The piezoelectric material 102 ... an acoustic impedance of about 27.5 MegaRayls." [0266]; "The first dual layer de-matching backing 110 includes ... the layer of tungsten 114 has an acoustic impedance of about 100 MegaRayls ..." [0271]).
Regarding claim 5, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 4, and Chaggares further teaches wherein the acoustic impedance of the heavy backing layer is 3 to 5 times of the acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric layer ("The piezoelectric material 102 ... an acoustic impedance of about 27.5 MegaRayls." [0266]; "The first dual layer de-matching backing 110 includes ... the layer of tungsten 114 has an acoustic impedance of about 100 MegaRayls ..." [0271]; here the ratio is 100/27.5 = 3.636).
Regarding claim 6, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Chaggares further teaches wherein the heavy backing layer comprises tungsten ("The first dual layer de-matching backing 110 includes ... the layer of tungsten 114 ..." [0271]).
Regarding claim 7, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Chaggares further teaches a conductive layer provided between the piezoelectric layer and the heavy backing layer ("… a single de-matching layer 128 positioned between the piezoelectric material 102 and the backing structure 108 … The single de-matching layer 128 may be made, for example and without being limitative, from tungsten." [0277]; tungsten is conductive)
Regarding claim 8, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Ma further teaches at least two matching layers ("The high-frequency matching layer 1 is a double-layer structure composed of two different materials." [0057]), wherein the matching layer in direct contact with the piezoelectric layer has an acoustic impedance greater than an acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric layer ("… the ratio of the acoustic impedance of the first anti-matching layer to the acoustic impedance of the low-frequency piezoelectric layer is less than 1 …" [0023]; "The material of the first anti-matching layer 51 is epoxy resin, the acoustic impedance is 2.4 MRayl ..." [0059]; thus, the acoustic impedance of piezoelectric layer is less than 2.4 MRayl; "The second high-frequency matching layer 12 is ... and the acoustic impedance is 8.9MRayl ..." [0057]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stacked structure as taught by Chaggares with the selection of thickness of layer in the stacked structure as taught by Ma. By applying multi-layer matching structure, it is possible to improve “the transmittance of high-frequency ultrasonic waves,” “thereby making more High-frequency ultrasonic energy can be emitted, which improves the emission efficiency of high-frequency ultrasonic energy, reduces the heating of the ultrasonic transducer, and extends the service life of the ultrasonic transducer" (see Ma; [0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Chaggares further teaches an ultrasonic transducer array, comprising two or more ultrasonic transducer units ("Now turning to FIGS. 7 to 12, there is illustrated an ultrasonic transducer array 200." [0308]) of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 10, and Chaggares further teaches wherein a gap is provided between adjacent ultrasonic transducer units ("As illustrated, each piezoelectric region 203 is separated one from another by gaps 238." [0315]), and the gap is filled with an insulating medium ("The gaps 238 are electrically insulating and preferably also acoustically insulating." [0315]); the gap is distributed between a heavy backing layer and a matching layer (see Fig.8, 9 and 12), and the ultrasonic transducer unit further comprises a conductive channel penetrating the heavy backing layer ("… the electrodes 126 are electrically connected to the piezoelectric material 102 through the backing structure 108." [0274]).
Regarding claim 12, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Chaggares further teaches an ultrasonic treatment device, comprising an ultrasonic transducer array comprising two or more ultrasonic transducer units ("Now turning to FIGS. 7 to 12 , there is illustrated an ultrasonic transducer array 200." [0308]; "For therapeutic medical applications, as well as NDT and other industrial applications, the DLDB equipped stack will generally be acceptable." [0363]) of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaggares in view of Ma, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Toda et al. (US 2009/0147627 A1; published on 06/11/2009) (hereinafter "Toda").
Regarding claim 9, Chaggares in view of Ma teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except wherein a surface of the backing layer away from the heavy backing layer is an arc surface with a Gaussian curvature greater than zero.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Toda teaches wherein a surface of the backing layer away from the heavy backing layer is an arc surface with a Gaussian curvature greater than zero ("Therefore, the boundary 49 is graded towards the back surface." [0041]; see Fig.3 and 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stacked structure as taught by Chaggares with the graded absorber in the stacked structure as taught by Toda. Doing so, "the phase of reflection is different for each different ray and the reflections with different phases are not added up constructively but rather effectively cancelled", therefore "the effective attenuation is increased using this approach" (see Toda; [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 M. Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/CHAO SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797