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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 15 Apr 2026, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections of 15 Jan 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 15 Apr 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of 15 Jan 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 12-13, filed 15 Apr 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues, see pg. 13, that “(Fujimara’s) cooling portion 34 is sandwiched between the backing material 33 and the wiring substrate 25. The cooling portion 34 does not extend along opposite sides of the wiring substrate 25 on which the backing material is disposed on.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 4 of Fujimara, which is a cross-sectional view along the A-A line in Fig. 3 of Fujimara, discloses cooling portion 34 extending along opposite sides of the wiring substrate 25 (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fujimara below):
PNG
media_image1.png
635
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, Fujimara’s cooling portion 34 indeed extends along opposite sides of wiring substrate 25 on which the backing material 33 is disposed on. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 1 below.
Regarding dependent claims 2-20, Applicant argues, see pg. 13, that the dependent claims are allowable at least for the same reasons for independent claim 1. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees at least for the reasons explained above for the independent claim 1.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination. No claim has been cancelled, added, nor withdrawn since the Non-Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “the cable; and a filler …; and …” should read “the cable; a filler …; and …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimara (US PG Pub No. 2016/0278737) in view of Eckert (US Patent No. 5664456).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimara discloses an ultrasound endoscope (at least Fig. 1) comprising:
a distal end part (Fig. 1: an insertion portion 2) including an ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 1-4: ultrasound transducer unit 30) and an imaging unit (Fig. 2 and [0022]: objective lens window 20 constituting an observation optical system, and illumination lens window 21 constituting an illumination optical system),
wherein the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 2-4: ultrasound transducer unit 30) includes an ultrasonic oscillator (Fig. 3-4: ultrasound transducer elements 15b) and a backing material layer (Fig. 3-4: backing material 33);
an accommodation portion (Fig. 3-4: cooling portion 34) that accommodates the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 3-4 and [0028]: cooling portion 34 on the back side of backing material 33 backing transducer elements 15b) and a cable connected to the ultrasonic oscillator (Fig. 3-4: signal wires 26 and lands 25a; [0029]: signal wires 26 connecting the respective transducer elements 15b and the wiring substrate 25),
a substrate (Fig. 3-4: wiring substrate 25) connecting the ultrasonic oscillator and the cable (Fig. 3-4: wiring substrate 25 connected to lands 25a, signal wires 26, and transducer elements 15b; [0029]: signal wires 26 connecting the respective transducer elements 15b and the wiring substrate 25);
a filler (Fig. 3-4: cooling portion 34) that fills a gap in the accommodation portion at the distal end part (Fig. 3-4 and [0029]: cooling portion 34 on a back side of the backing material 33),
wherein the filler (Fig. 3-4: cooling portion 34) extends along opposing sides of the substrate (Fig. 4: cooling portion 34 on opposing sides of wiring substrate 25 that are each connected to a curved portion 35 of signal wire 26, and
the backing material layer (Fig. 3-4: backing material 33) is disposed along a side of the substrate between the opposing sides of the substrate (see annotated Fig. 4 below: backing material 33 disposed on a side of wiring substrate 25 that is between opposing sides of wiring substrate 25 that are each connected to a curved portion 35 of signal wire 26):
PNG
media_image1.png
635
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; and
wherein the backing material layer (Fig. 3-4: backing material 33) is comprised of at least epoxy resin or polyurethane ([0028]: backing material 33 comprising epoxy resin, urethane (polyurethane) as a basis material).
Fujimara does not disclose:
the backing material layer comprising a glass transition temperature of 45 degrees Celsius or lower.
In the same field of backing an ultrasound transducer, Eckert, however, teaches:
a glass transition temperature of a backing material being 45 degrees Celsius or lower (Col 5, lines 26-39: glass point (or glass transition temperature) of the stress equalizing layer 5 (backing material layer) lies preferably between 30 deg C and 40 deg C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimara’s backing material to include Eckert’s backing material of glass transition temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., modifying the backing material composition, as disclosed by Eckert), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Fujimara and Eckert are directed to providing a backing material to the ultrasound transducer. The motivation for the combination would have been "As a result of the abovementioned selection of the glass point (or glass transition temperature of the backing material layer), it is possible to use the ultrasonic transducer over a very large temperature range, from -50° C. to 120° C (without compromising the integrity of the ultrasound transducer)", as disclosed by Eckert (Col 5, lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 2, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and as noted above in claim 1, Eckert teaches:
wherein the glass transition temperature is between 10 degrees Celsius and 45 degrees Celsius, inclusive (Col 5, lines 26-39: glass point (or glass transition temperature) of the stress equalizing layer 5 (backing material layer) lies preferably between 30 deg C and 40 deg C).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and as noted above in claim 2, Eckert teaches:
wherein the glass transition temperature is between 10 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius, inclusive (Col 5, lines 26-39: glass point (or glass transition temperature) of the stress equalizing layer 5 (backing material layer) lies preferably between 30 deg C and 40 deg C).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and as noted above in claim 3, Eckert teaches:
wherein the glass transition temperature is between 20 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius, inclusive (Col 5, lines 26-39: glass point (or glass transition temperature) of the stress equalizing layer 5 (backing material layer) lies preferably between 30 deg C and 40 deg C).
Regarding claim 5, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, and as noted above in claim 4, Eckert teaches:
wherein the glass transition temperature is between 25 degrees Celsius and 35 degrees Celsius, inclusive (Col 5, lines 26-39: glass point (or glass transition temperature) of the stress equalizing layer 5 (backing material layer) lies preferably between 30 deg C and 40 deg C).
Regarding claim 6, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein a hardness of the filler is higher than a hardness of the backing material layer ([0032]: cooling portion 34 formed by mixing more ceramic particles than the backing material 33 with same basic resin material as the backing material 33).
It is noted that adding ceramic particles to a resin is well known in the art to increase the strength of the resin, as evidenced by Moharana et al. (see the Introduction of Moharana et al. An investigation on mechanical properties of SiC reinforced epoxy composite synthesized at room temperature, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 59, Part 3, 2022, Pages 1852-1857, ISSN 2214-7853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.588. A copy previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026.). Therefore, Fujimara's cooling portion has a higher hardness than its backing material as its cooling portion has more ceramic particles than its backing material does.
Regarding claim 7, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein a hardness of the filler is higher than a hardness of the backing material layer ([0032]: cooling portion 34 formed by mixing more ceramic particles than the backing material 33 with same basic resin material as the backing material 33).
It is noted that adding ceramic particles to a resin is well known in the art to increase the strength of the resin, as evidenced by Moharana et al. (see the Introduction of Moharana et al. An investigation on mechanical properties of SiC reinforced epoxy composite synthesized at room temperature, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 59, Part 3, 2022, Pages 1852-1857, ISSN 2214-7853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.588. A copy previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026.). Therefore, Fujimara's cooling portion has a higher hardness than its backing material as its cooling portion has more ceramic particles than its backing material does.
Regarding claim 8, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein a hardness of the filler is higher than a hardness of the backing material layer ([0032]: cooling portion 34 formed by mixing more ceramic particles than the backing material 33 with same basic resin material as the backing material 33).
It is noted that adding ceramic particles to a resin is well known in the art to increase the strength of the resin, as evidenced by Moharana et al. (see the Introduction of Moharana et al. An investigation on mechanical properties of SiC reinforced epoxy composite synthesized at room temperature, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 59, Part 3, 2022, Pages 1852-1857, ISSN 2214-7853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.588. A copy previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026.). Therefore, Fujimara's cooling portion has a higher hardness than its backing material as its cooling portion has more ceramic particles than its backing material does.
Regarding claim 9, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein a hardness of the filler is higher than a hardness of the backing material layer ([0032]: cooling portion 34 formed by mixing more ceramic particles than the backing material 33 with same basic resin material as the backing material 33).
It is noted that adding ceramic particles to a resin is well known in the art to increase the strength of the resin, as evidenced by Moharana et al. (see the Introduction of Moharana et al. An investigation on mechanical properties of SiC reinforced epoxy composite synthesized at room temperature, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 59, Part 3, 2022, Pages 1852-1857, ISSN 2214-7853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.588. A copy previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026.). Therefore, Fujimara's cooling portion has a higher hardness than its backing material as its cooling portion has more ceramic particles than its backing material does.
Regarding claim 10, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein a hardness of the filler is higher than a hardness of the backing material layer ([0032]: cooling portion 34 formed by mixing more ceramic particles than the backing material 33 with same basic resin material as the backing material 33).
It is noted that adding ceramic particles to a resin is well known in the art to increase the strength of the resin, as evidenced by Moharana et al. (see the Introduction of Moharana et al. An investigation on mechanical properties of SiC reinforced epoxy composite synthesized at room temperature, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 59, Part 3, 2022, Pages 1852-1857, ISSN 2214-7853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.588. A copy previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026.). Therefore, Fujimara's cooling portion has a higher hardness than its backing material as its cooling portion has more ceramic particles than its backing material does.
Regarding claim 20, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 2: ultrasound transducer unit 30) is provided on a distal end side with respect to the imaging unit (Fig. 2: objective lens window 20 and illumination lens window 21).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimara in view of Eckert, as applied to claims 6-8 respectively above, and further in view of Tokimaru et al. (EP 4578892) – hereafter referred to as Tokimaru.
Regarding claim 11, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Fujimara does not disclose:
wherein the filler is an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 12,000 mol/m3, inclusive.
In the same field of providing a resin filler, Tokimaru, however, teaches:
an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 12,000 mol/m3, inclusive ([0178]: crosslink density of the resin composition is between 200 mol/m3 to 1200 mol/m3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimara’s filler resin to include Tokimaru’s epoxy resin of a crosslinking density. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing epoxy resin of a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 1200 mol/m3, as disclosed by Tokimaru), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Fujimara and Tokimaru are directed to providing an epoxy resin. The motivation for the combination would have been since “When the crosslink density is within any of the ranges set forth above, high mechanical properties and good fluidity tend to be obtained. Good fluidity has an effect of making shaping defects or the like unlikely to occur during shaping”, as taught by Tokimaru ([0178]).
Regarding claim 12, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, and Fujimara does not disclose:
wherein the filler is an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 12,000 mol/m3, inclusive.
In the same field of providing a resin filler, Tokimaru, however, teaches:
an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 12,000 mol/m3, inclusive ([0178]: crosslink density of the resin composition is between 200 mol/m3 to 1200 mol/m3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimara’s filler resin to include Tokimaru’s epoxy resin of a crosslinking density. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing epoxy resin of a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 1200 mol/m3, as disclosed by Tokimaru), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Fujimara and Tokimaru are directed to providing an epoxy resin. The motivation for the combination would have been since “When the crosslink density is within any of the ranges set forth above, high mechanical properties and good fluidity tend to be obtained. Good fluidity has an effect of making shaping defects or the like unlikely to occur during shaping”, as taught by Tokimaru ([0178]).
Regarding claim 13, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Fujimara does not disclose:
wherein the filler is an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 12,000 mol/m3, inclusive.
In the same field of providing a resin filler, Tokimaru, however, teaches:
an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 12,000 mol/m3, inclusive ([0178]: crosslink density of the resin composition is between 200 mol/m3 to 1200 mol/m3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimara’s filler resin to include Tokimaru’s epoxy resin of a crosslinking density. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., providing epoxy resin of a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 1200 mol/m3, as disclosed by Tokimaru), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Fujimara and Tokimaru are directed to providing an epoxy resin. The motivation for the combination would have been since “When the crosslink density is within any of the ranges set forth above, high mechanical properties and good fluidity tend to be obtained. Good fluidity has an effect of making shaping defects or the like unlikely to occur during shaping”, as taught by Tokimaru ([0178]).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimara in view of Eckert, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US PG Pub No. 2024/0042488) – hereinafter referred to as Yamada.
Regarding claim 14, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein the backing material layer comprising a polyurethane resin or an epoxy resin ([0028]: backing material 33 comprising epoxy resin or urethane (polyurethane) as basic material).
Fujimara does not disclose:
wherein the backing material layer comprises at least one of a polyurea resin, an epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure, or an epoxy resin having a polyetheramine structure.
In the same field of backing an ultrasound transducer, Yamada, however, teaches:
a backing material layer (Fig. 2: backing material 110) comprising a polyurea resin or epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure ([0138]: matrix was impregnated and filled with urethane resin (or polyurea resin) and cured, then impregnated and filled with an epoxy resin and cured, to obtain a backing material for Example 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimara’s backing material to include Yamada’s backing material of polyurea resin or epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., arranging backing material of polyurea resin or epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure relative to the ultrasound transducer, as disclosed by Eckert), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Fujimara and Yamada are directed to providing a backing material to the ultrasound transducer. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide a backing material “with satisfactory ultrasonic wave attenuation and satisfactory heat conductivity” (see [0146] of Yamada) and specifically with acoustic velocity of 3000 m/s, acoustic impedance of 4.4 MRayl, and ultrasonic attenuation of -26 dB/cm (see Table 1 of Yamada).
Regarding claims 15-17, Fujimara in view of Eckert and Yamada discloses all limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein the backing material layer comprises a heat radiation filler ([0028]: backing material 33 comprising ceramic particles such as alumina (aluminum oxide); claims 15-17);
wherein a thermal conductivity of the heat radiation filler is 30 W/m·K or more ([0028]: backing material 33 comprising ceramic particles such as alumina (aluminum oxide); claims 16-17); and
wherein the heat radiation filler comprises at least one of aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, silicon carbide, tungsten carbide, silicon nitride, boron nitride, or aluminum nitride ([0028]: backing material 33 is comprised of ceramic particles such as alumina (aluminum oxide); claim 17).
It is noted that while Eckert does not explicitly disclose that its aluminum oxide comprises the claimed thermal conductivity of 30 W/m·K or more in claim 16, a review of the specification of the instant application in [0097], as well as claim 17 to which claim 16 recites, aluminum oxide is well known in the art to comprise a thermal conductivity of 30 W/m·K or more.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimara in view of Eckert, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (WIPO Pub No. WO2017/095183. A copy of machine translation relied upon previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026) – hereinafter referred to as Jeong.
Regarding claims 18-19, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Fujimara does not disclose:
wherein a thickness of the backing material layer is between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm, inclusive (claims 18-19); and
wherein a vibration frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator has a center frequency between 5 MHz and 12 MHz, inclusive (claim 19).
In the same field of backing an ultrasound transducer, Jeong, however, teaches:
a thickness of a backing material between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm, inclusive ([67]: thickness of each backing material ranging between 0.5 mm and 1 mm, or totaling to 1.5 mm; [68]: thickness of a simulated backing layer is 1 mm); and
a vibration frequency of an ultrasonic oscillator having a center frequency between 5 MHz and 12 MHz, inclusive ([54]: center frequency of 5.5 MHz applied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimara’s device to include Jeong’s backing material thickness and ultrasound vibration frequency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., configuring the thickness of the backing material layer between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm and the vibration frequency of an ultrasonic transducer having a center frequency of 5.5 MHz, as disclosed by Jeong), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Fujimara and Jeong are directed to providing a backing material to the ultrasound transducer. The motivation for the combination would have been since transducers used “in systems where portability is important cannot have thick backing layer that the thickness is made thin”, as taught by Jeong ([7]), in performing an ultrasound imaging procedure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto et al. (US PG Pub No. 2022/0071592) discloses at least a filler that fills a gap in the accommodation portion at the distal end part, wherein the filler extends along opposing sides of the substrate, and the backing material layer is disposed along a side of the substrate between the opposing sides (see Fig. 3-4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
7/11/26
Prosecution Insights