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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract consists of two paragraphs and is over 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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 generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “elevation direction” in claim 1 is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by this and the drawings and specification do not make it clear. It can mean any arbitrarily chosen direction, it can simply mean x axis or y axis. Applicant also uses azimuth and elevation which is just another way of describing the same. A person of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation in order to avoid infringement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshida (US 20230329673 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses an ultrasound probe in which a plurality of piezoelectric elements are arranged in an array on a backing material along an azimuth direction[Fig 1,2, 0031 has ultrasonic probe with peizo electric elements #101 with backing layer #107 with 0051-0054 discussing layer direction either A or B], the ultrasound probe comprising:
a flexible circuit board disposed between the backing material and the plurality of piezoelectric elements[Fig 2 has circuit board #105 with elements #101 and backing layer #107],
wherein each of the plurality of piezoelectric elements consisting of a laminate in which a signal electrode layer, a piezoelectric body portion, and a ground electrode layer are sequentially laminated in a lamination direction on a surface of the flexible circuit board[Fig 2 shows they are laminated layers. See also title, abstract and summary and 0051-0055 ],
the signal electrode layer is electrically connected to the flexible circuit board[the piezoelectric elements would necessarily need electrodes based on the principles of physics],
the flexible circuit board is longer than the piezoelectric body portion in an elevation direction[Fig 2 has circuit board #105 with two directions A and B and it is longer than the elements in the direction],
first members consisting of an adhesive in which abrasive grains are dispersed are disposed at end parts of the laminate in the elevation direction[first members #106. 0054-0057 have the same shown to be in either direction in fig 3, 4, 12 and claims 15, 16 have abrasive grains],
and the ground electrode layer is electrically connected to the flexible circuit board via metal foil that extends from a surface of the laminate to surfaces of the first members and side surfaces of the first members in the elevation direction. [Fig 12 and 0052-0053 has conductive surface plating]
In the event that the prior art is not explicit on the direction or electrical connection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have used either direction to lay the circuit and to electrically connect the piezoelectric elements in order to have them function based on the principles of physics.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida discloses wherein the first members are each disposed at both end parts of the laminate in the elevation direction. [first members #106. 0054-0057 have the same shown to be in either direction in fig 3, 4, 12. Moreover members and laminate have to have an end sometime]
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yoshida discloses wherein the first members have an acoustic attenuation rate equal to or higher than an acoustic attenuation rate of the backing material. [0059, 0066 and claim 7 has attenuation and 0051-0052, 0070 and claims 2, 5, 8 has acoustic impedance of various layers].
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified attenuation rates of the material, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 Yoshida discloses wherein the first members consist of a vitreous adhesive or a ceramic adhesive in which any of a white alumina abrasive, a green silicon carbide, or a resinoid is dispersed as the abrasive grains.[0057-0059 has alumina, carbide, resin, ceramic and abrasive such as diamond or any other ].
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 11, Yoshida discloses wherein second members having an acoustic attenuation rate higher than an acoustic attenuation rate of the first members are disposed between the end parts of the laminate in the elevation direction and the first members. [0059, 0066 and claim 7 has attenuation and 0051-0052, 0070 and claims 2, 5, 8 has acoustic impedance of various layers].
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified attenuation rates of the layers, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 14, Yoshida discloses wherein the second members consist of a buffer material. [0059 has epoxy resin].
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 17, Yoshida discloses wherein the buffer material consists of a silicone resin or an epoxy resin. [0059 has epoxy resin].
Regarding claims 18, 19, and 20, Yoshida discloses further comprising:a dematching layer disposed between the flexible circuit board and the plurality of piezoelectric elements and having an acoustic impedance higher than an acoustic impedance of the piezoelectric body portion. [Fig 2, 3, 4 has dematching layer #104 between elements #101 and circuit board #105; 0059, 0066 and claim 7 has attenuation and 0051-0052, 0070 and claims 2, 5, 8 has acoustic impedance of various layers].
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified acoustic impedance rates of the dematching layer, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights