DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 1-6 remain pending.
The previously raised objections for Claim 6 are withdrawn because the issues have been properly corrected.
The previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for Claims 1-6 are withdrawn because the issues have been properly corrected.
Response to Arguments
On Pages 4-5 of Remarks, Applicant argues that amended Claim 1 claims a single vibration element being divided into two virtual portions, but the cited pair of cells in reference Henneken, which corresponds to the claimed vibration element, comprises 2 cells. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which relies on reference Prins (US 20130245450 A1) to disclose the claimed limitation.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Lines 4-5 recites “each of the plurality of vibration elements is divided in such a manner that … ”. The elements are not divided. The recited phrase should be changed to “each of the plurality of vibration elements has such a shape that …”, or any other form that agrees with Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henneken et al (US 20170319180 A1; hereafter Henneken), in view of Prins et al (US 20130245450 A1; hereafter Prins).
With regard to Claim 1, Henneken discloses an ultrasound probe (Henneken, Para 0051; “The CMUT array 100 may be located on, e.g. wrapped around, the tip (or in the vicinity thereof) of a catheter or ultrasound probe 100’ …”) comprising:
a vibration element array (CMUT array 100, or more specifically an operational row of transducer elements (high) in Para 0044; “… one operational row in FIG. 4 comprises cells 621, 622, 623, 624, … 62N of two adjacent staggered rows, i.e. the Mth operational row comprises the Mth CMUT cell 50 of each column 58 of CMUT cells 50, with M being a positive integer …”) including a plurality of vibration elements arranged in an array direction (Henneken, Fig. 4 (cited below) show an example of disclosed “operational row”, which is highlighted by a black contour. The operational row comprises 6 pairs of cells, which are arranged in the horizontal direction, and each of the pairs, e.g. cells 621 and 622 in Fig. 4, can be interpreted as the claimed “vibration element”),
wherein each of the plurality of vibration elements is divided in such a manner that when a vibration element in the plurality of vibration element is virtually divided into a first virtual portion and a second virtual portion (as an example, cells 621 and 622 in Fig. 4) by a straight line passing through a centroid of the single vibration element and extending in the array direction, as seen from a depth direction (a virtual straight horizontal line through the center of a stagger row), the vibration element has a shape in which a first virtual centroid that is a centroid of the first virtual portion (a centroid of cell 621) and a second virtual centroid that is a centroid of the second virtual portion (a centroid of cell 622) are located at different positions in the array direction (Henneken, Para 0044; “this decreased spacing 57”. Two cells 621 and 622 or 62N-1 and 62N are located at different positions, with distance of “spacing 57”, in the horizontal direction), and
due to the shape, a grating beam output from the first virtual portion and a grating beam output from the second virtual portion are canceled out from each other due to a phase shift, so that an intensity of the grating beam output from each of the vibration elements is reduced (Henneken, Para 0008; “This therefore facilitates the generation of ultrasound images with improved image quality and reduced image artefacts such as grating lobes due to the reduced pitch between CMUT cells.” Para 0044; “the staggered configuration of the operational row still is capable of providing acoustic signals for highly resolved images with lower clutter due to the reduced grating lobes in the antenna pattern.”).
Fig. 4 of Henneken Fig. 4(c) of Prins
PNG
media_image1.png
544
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
204
227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Henneken does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein each single vibration element in the vibration element array has the claimed shape.
Prins in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein each single vibration element in the vibration element array has the claimed shape (Prins, Para 0079; “A skewed grid pattern consisting of elliptic transducer elements 130 is shown in FIG. 4c”. Fig. 4c as cited above shows that each elliptic element is skewed to the left side so that centroid of the upper half and of the lower half are located at different positions in the horizontal direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henneken, as suggested by Prins, in order to use a single transducer element to achieve the desired configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of using a single set of control and power lines so as to reduce cost of manufacturing and space of the device.
With regard to Claim 4, Henneken and Prins disclose the ultrasound probe according to Claim 1. Henneken further discloses wherein an intervirtual centroid distance, which is a distance between the first virtual centroid and the second virtual centroid in the array direction (Henneken, Para 0044; “this decreased spacing 57”), is less than a vibration element pitch in the vibration element array (According to Fig. 5 of Application, the claimed “pitch” is the distance of two adjacent elements along the array direction. For Henneken, such “pitch” equals the distance of the center of cell 62N and of cell 62N-2, or 2 times of the spacing 57 (see Fig. 4 of Henneken cited above). Therefore, the disclosed “decreased spacing 57” is less than the pitch for Henneken).
With regard to Claim 5, Henneken and Prins disclose the ultrasound probe according to Claim 4. Henneken further discloses wherein, in a case where the plurality of vibration elements are arranged on a plane, the intervirtual centroid distance is half of the vibration element pitch (Henneken, Fig. 4 (cited above) shows that the spacing 57 is half of the pitch, which equals distance of the center of cell 62N and of cell 62N-2).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henneken and Prins, in view of Zhao et al (US 20170136495 A1; hereafter Zhao).
With regard to Claim 2, Henneken and Prins disclose the ultrasound probe according to Claim 1. Henneken further discloses wherein, in a plan view as seen from a depth direction, at least one side of the vibration element is curved (Henneken, Fig. 4 shows that each element comprises 2 cells with round shape, so at least one side of the element is curved). Henneken and Prins do not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein, in a plan view as seen from a depth direction, the shape of the vibration element is a polygon with 5 or more sides.
Zhao in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein, in a plan view as seen from a depth direction, the shape of the vibration element is a polygon with 5 or more sides (Zhao, Para 0047, “rather than having square or otherwise rectangular shaped CMUT cells when viewed in plan, as shown in FIG. 6, the CMUT cells 602-614 may have membranes (cavities) of various other shapes or any combination of shapes such as hexagonal, circular, triangular, trapezoidal, and so forth …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henneken and Prins, as suggested by Zhao, in order to use transducer element with shape of polygon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of simplifying manufacturing process and creating transducer with multiple desired shapes by combing multiple polygonal elements.
With regard to Claim 3, Henneken and Prins disclose the ultrasound probe according to Claim 1, but do not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein, in a plan view as seen from a depth direction, a shape of the first virtual portion and a shape of the second virtual portion are in a point-asymmetric relationship with the centroid of the vibration element as a center.
Zhao in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein, in a plan view as seen from a depth direction, a shape of the first virtual portion and a shape of the second virtual portion are in a point-asymmetric relationship with the centroid of the vibration element as a center (Zhao, Para 0047; “rather than having square or otherwise rectangular shaped CMUT cells when viewed in plan, as shown in FIG. 6, the CMUT cells 602-614 may have membranes (cavities) of various other shapes or any combination of shapes such as hexagonal, circular, triangular, trapezoidal, and so forth.” For the disclosed “triangular” or “trapezoidal” shapes, two portions are in a point-asymmetric relationship with the centroid of the element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henneken and Prins, as suggested by Zhao, in order to use cells with point-asymmetric shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved image quality by creating desired ultrasound beam patterns (Zhao, Para 0069; “… the trapezoidal shape of the sub-elements 1306 and 1308 causes the active area of the sub-elements 1306 and 1308 to decrease towards the edges 228 and 230, and therefore creates a linear apodization profile. An apodization profile is a window function that weighs more in the center and less toward both edges. In ultrasound imaging, apodization may be utilized to shape ultrasound beam patterns and reduce side lobe levels for obtaining better image quality.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor reasonably suggest the limitations set forth in the claim. Specifically the prior art does not disclose an ultrasound probe comprising:
a vibration element array including a plurality of vibration elements arranged in an array direction,
wherein each of the plurality of vibration elements is divided in such a manner that when a single vibration element in the plurality of vibration element is virtually divided into a first virtual portion and a second virtual portion by a straight line passing through a centroid of the single vibration element and extending in the array direction, as seen from a depth direction, the single vibration element has a shape in which a first virtual centroid that is a centroid of the first virtual portion and a second virtual centroid that is a centroid of the second virtual portion are located at different positions in the array direction,
due to the shape, a grating beam output from the first virtual portion and a grating beam output from the second virtual portion are canceled out from each other due to a phase shift, so that an intensity of the grating beam output from each of the vibration elements is reduced,
wherein an intervirtual centroid distance, which is a distance between the first virtual centroid and the second virtual centroid in the array direction, is less than a vibration element pitch in the vibration element array, and
wherein, in a case where the plurality of vibration elements are arranged on a curved surface with a curvature along the array direction, the intervirtual centroid distance is half of a virtual pitch P’ between two adjacent vibration elements, and the virtual pitch P’ is represented by
P
'
=
P
s
i
n
θ
g
/
s
i
n
(
θ
g
-
β
)
β
=
(
N
/
4
)
*
α
here, P is the vibration element pitch, θg is a beam angle of the grating beam output, N is the number of the plurality of vibration elements, and α is an angular pitch between the vibration elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Raju et al (US 20120184854 A1) discloses ultrasonic sensor with array of transducer elements of triangular and trapezoidal shapes. Barnes et al (US 20050228277 A1) discloses ultrasonic transducer arrays with each combined element formed in a skewed shape.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/L.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights