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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f) based on an application (Application No. JP2024-028462) filed in Japan on 28 Feb 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 Feb 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification of 16 Feb 2025 does not specify the temperature scale (i.e., Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin, etc.) for the disclosed temperatures, especially the claimed glass transition temperature of the backing material layer. A review of the priority document of the instant application, however, discloses that the disclosed temperatures are in Celsius.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a glass transition temperature of the backing material layer is 45 degrees or lower”. The limitation does not specify the temperature scale (i.e., Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin, etc.) for the claimed range of temperature that the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claims 2-19 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. While a review of the specification of 16 Feb 2025 does not disclose the temperature unit for the claimed range of temperature, a review of the priority document of the instant application, however, discloses that the disclosed temperatures are in Celsius. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the priority document of the instant application as “a glass transition temperature of the backing material layer is 45 degrees Celsius or lower” and any further recited glass transition temperatures in the dependent claims 2-5 are also given a broadest reasonable interpretation to be in Celsius.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the glass transition temperature is 10 degrees or higher”. Claim 1, to which claim 2 depends, also recites “a glass transition temperature of the backing material layer is 45 degrees or lower”. Thus, the claimed range of the glass transition temperature in claim 2 is unclear: specifically, the term “higher” in the limitation of claim 2 suggests a glass transition temperature even higher than 45 degrees recited in claim 1. Claims 3-6, 7-10, and 12-13 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 2. For purposes of the examination, the limitation in claim 2 is given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the glass transition temperature is between 10 degrees Celsius and 45 degrees Celsius, inclusive”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the glass transition temperature is 40 degrees or lower”. Claim 2, to which claim 3 depends, also recites “a glass transition temperature of the backing material layer is 45 degrees or lower” and “wherein the glass transition temperature is 10 degrees or higher”. Thus, the claimed range of the glass transition temperature in claim 3 is unclear: specifically, the term “lower” in the limitation of claim 3 suggests a glass transition temperature even lower than 10 degrees recited in claim 2. Claims 4-5, 8-10, and 13 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 3. For purposes of the examination, the limitation in claim 3 is given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the glass transition temperature is between 10 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius, inclusive”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the glass transition temperature is 20 degrees or higher”. Claim 3, to which claim 4 depends, also recites ““a glass transition temperature of the backing material layer is 45 degrees or lower”, “wherein the glass transition temperature is 10 degrees or higher”, and “wherein the glass transition temperature is 40 degrees or lower”. Thus, the claimed range of the glass transition temperature in claim 4 is unclear: specifically, the term “higher” in the limitation of claim 4 suggests a glass transition temperature even higher than 40 degrees recited in claim 3. Claims 5 and 9-10 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 4. For purposes of the examination, the limitation in claim 4 is given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the glass transition temperature is between 20 degrees Celsius and 40 degrees Celsius, inclusive”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the glass transition temperature is 25 degrees or higher and 35 degrees or lower”. Claim 4, to which claim 5 depends, also recites “a glass transition temperature of the backing material layer is 45 degrees or lower”, “wherein the glass transition temperature is 10 degrees or higher”, “wherein the glass transition temperature is 40 degrees or lower”, and “wherein the glass transition temperature is 20 degrees or higher”. Thus, the claimed range of the glass transition temperature in claim 5 is unclear: specifically, the term “higher” in the limitation of claim 5 suggests a glass transition temperature even higher than 40 degrees or lower than 20 degrees recited in claim 4. Claim 10 inherits the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 5. For purposes of the examination, the limitation in claim 5 is given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the glass transition temperature is between 25 degrees Celsius and 35 degrees Celsius, inclusive”.
Claims 11-13 each recite the limitation “wherein the filler is an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density of 500 mol/m3 or more and 12,000 mol/m3 or less”. The claimed range of the crosslinking density in each of claims 11-13 is unclear: specifically, the term “more” in the limitation suggests a crosslinking density greater than 12,000 mol/m3 while the term “less” also in the limitation suggests a crosslinking density less than 500 mol/m3. For purposes of the examination, the limitation in each of claims 11-13 is given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the filler is an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density between 500 mol/m3 and 12,000 mol/m3, inclusive”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the backing material layer comprises at least one kind of a polyurea resin, an epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure, or an epoxy resin having a polyetheramine structure”. The term “kind” in the limitation renders the claimed backing material layer indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E. Claims 15-17 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 14. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “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”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein a thickness of the backing material layer is 0.5 mm or more and 1.5 mm or less”. The claimed range of the thickness of the backing material layer in claim 18 is unclear: specifically, the term “more” in the limitation suggests a thickness greater than 1.5 mm while the term “less” also in the limitation suggests a thickness less than 0.5 mm. Claim 19 inherits the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 18. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein a thickness of the backing material layer is between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm, inclusive”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein a vibration frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator has a center frequency of 5 MHz or more and 12 MHz or less”. The claimed range of the vibration frequency in claim 19 is unclear: specifically, the term “more” in the limitation suggests a vibration frequency greater than 12 MHz while the term “less” also in the limitation suggests a vibration frequency less than 5 MHz. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein a vibration frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator has a center frequency between 5 MHz and 12 MHz, inclusive”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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. 1-3: 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. 2-3: ultrasound transducer unit 30) includes an ultrasonic oscillator (Fig. 3: ultrasound transducer elements 15b) and a backing material layer (Fig. 3: backing material 33), and
wherein the backing material layer 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 10 degrees Celsius or higher (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 40 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).
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 20 degrees Celsius or higher (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 25 degrees Celsius or higher and 35 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).
Regarding claim 6, Fujimara in view of Eckert discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Fujimara further discloses:
wherein an accommodation portion (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that accommodates the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 3 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: signal wires 26 and lands 25a; [0029]: signal wires 26 connecting the respective transducer elements 15b and the wiring substrate 25), and a filler (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that fills a gap in the accommodation portion are provided at the distal end part (Fig. 3 and [0029]: cooling portion 34 on a back side of backing material 33), and
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 attached to this Office action). 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 an accommodation portion (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that accommodates the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 3 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: signal wires 26 and lands 25a; [0029]: signal wires 26 connecting the respective transducer elements 15b and the wiring substrate 25), and a filler (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that fills a gap in the accommodation portion are provided at the distal end part (Fig. 3 and [0029]: cooling portion 34 on a back side of backing material 33), and
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 attached to this Office action). 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 an accommodation portion (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that accommodates the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 3 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: signal wires 26 and lands 25a; [0029]: signal wires 26 connecting the respective transducer elements 15b and the wiring substrate 25), and a filler (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that fills a gap in the accommodation portion are provided at the distal end part (Fig. 3 and [0029]: cooling portion 34 on a back side of backing material 33), and
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 attached to this Office action). 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 an accommodation portion (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that accommodates the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 3 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: signal wires 26 and lands 25a; [0029]: signal wires 26 connecting the respective transducer elements 15b and the wiring substrate 25), and a filler (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that fills a gap in the accommodation portion are provided at the distal end part (Fig. 3 and [0029]: cooling portion 34 on a back side of backing material 33), and
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 attached to this Office action). 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 an accommodation portion (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that accommodates the ultrasound transmission and reception section (Fig. 3 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: signal wires 26 and lands 25a; [0029]: signal wires 26 connecting the respective transducer elements 15b and the wiring substrate 25), and a filler (Fig 3: cooling portion 34) that fills a gap in the accommodation portion are provided at the distal end part (Fig. 3 and [0029]: cooling portion 34 on a back side of backing material 33), and
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 attached to this Office action). 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 of 500 mol/m3 or more and 12,000 mol/m3 or less.
In the same field of providing a resin filler, Tokimaru, however, teaches:
an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density of 500 mol/m3 or more and 12,000 mol/m3 or less ([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 of 500 mol/m3 or more and 12,000 mol/m3 or less.
In the same field of providing a resin filler, Tokimaru, however, teaches:
an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density of 500 mol/m3 or more and 12,000 mol/m3 or less ([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 of 500 mol/m3 or more and 12,000 mol/m3 or less.
In the same field of providing a resin filler, Tokimaru, however, teaches:
an epoxy resin having a crosslinking density of 500 mol/m3 or more and 12,000 mol/m3 or less ([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 kind 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 attached to this Office action) – 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 0.5 mm or more and 1.5 mm or less (claims 18-19); and
wherein a vibration frequency of the ultrasonic oscillator has a center frequency of 5 MHz or more and 12 MHz or less. (claim 19).
In the same field of backing an ultrasound transducer, Jeong, however, teaches:
a thickness of a backing material being 0.5 mm or more and 1.5 mm or less ([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 of 5 MHz or more and 12 MHz or less ([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
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
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
1/12/26