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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-7 and 13-14 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-12 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 3-5 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.
For claim 3, the limitation “wherein the PMUT section close to the wave receiver includes a high frequency diaphragm, and the PMUT section far from the wave receiver includes a low frequency diaphragm” is indefinite. It is unclear where is the wave receiver is located relative to the PMUT section. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner reads the limitation as includes a high frequency diaphragm and a low frequency diaphragm.
Claims 4-5 are dependent of claim 3, and therefore rejected under this 112(b) rejection as well.
For claim 4, the limitation “a hardware processor that, when a depth of an ultrasound image is small, selects the PMUT section close to the wave receiver and causes the series connector to connect the selected PMUT section and, when the depth is large, selects the PMUT section far from the wave receiver and causes the series connector to connect the selected PMUT section” is indefinite. It is unclear where the wave receiver is located relative to the selected PMUT section. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner reads the limitation as imaging at small and large depths.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boser et al. (US 20160262725 A1, published September 15, 2016) in view of Wodnicki (US 20090182229 A1, published July 16, 2009), hereinafter referred to as Boser and Wodnicki, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Boser teaches a transmission and reception device (Fig. 5) comprising:
a plurality of PMUT sections in which each PMUT section includes one or more PMUTs on a CMOS circuit (see para. 0013 – “A miniature ultrasonic transmitter/receiver system is disclosed that may be implemented, such as using a CMOS ASIC and micro-machined ultrasonic transducers (MUTs).”; see para. 0034 – “It should also be appreciated that embodiments of the present disclosure may be configured using Piezoelectric MUTs (PMUTs)…”); and
the CMOS circuit (see para. 0013 – “A miniature ultrasonic transmitter/receiver system is disclosed that may be implemented, such as using a CMOS ASIC…”), wherein the CMOS circuit includes:
a wave transmitter that switches a voltage between a high voltage and a low voltage and applies the switched voltage to one or both of an upper electrode and a lower electrode of the PMUT section at a time of transmission of an ultrasound (see para. 0036 – “In FIG. 2 a cutaway of a PMUT embodiment 30 is shown having a piezoelectric layer 32, over which is disposed a top electrode pattern 34 a. Beneath the piezoelectric layer 32 there is shown a bottom electrode 34 b…”; Fig. 5; see para. 0040 – “When transmitting, an input low-voltage pulse is directed into each channel and delayed by the amount determined by delay control unit 90. The delayed signal 92, then enters a high-voltage level shifter 94 [switched voltage] which outputs a level-shifted output 96 by to drive the sensor array seen as outputs 100 a through 100 n directed at PMUT 77.”).
Boser teaches PMUTs, but does not explicitly teach connecting the PMUTs in series to a common potential.
Whereas, Wodnicki, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a series connector that connects the PMUT sections in series in an arbitrary number of series and connects the connected PMUT sections between a wave receiver and a common potential at a time of reception of an ultrasound, the wave receiver processing a reception signal of the connected PMUT sections (Fig. 1 and 4; see para. 0033 – “The electrode 10 may provide a common ground among all of the transducer cells 2.”; see para. 0075 – “In FIG. 6B numerous power lines are shown extending from outside the array, brought through contact pads I/O in columns 1, 3, 5 and 7, into each of the underlying cells 92. In addition to Vdd, Vss and ground (GND), the power lines include high voltage for P-type power devices (HVP) and for N-type power devices (HVN).”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PMUTs, as disclosed in Boser, by connecting the PMUTs in series to a common potential, as disclosed in Wodnicki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the low-voltage receive signals from the transducers to be routed to the low-voltage switching network, but prevent them from affecting the splitter, as taught in Wodnicki (see para. 0062).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Wodnicki further teaches a hardware processor that increases the number of series of connection of the PMUT sections corresponding to one reception channel in response to an increase in depth of an ultrasound image (see para. 0009 – “…the connection of channels to define groups of transducer cells may be varied in order to achieve real-time flexibility to generate a variety of images, e.g., according to differing depths of focus.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Boser further teaches a separator that separates the wave transmitter from the PMUT section at a time of reception of an ultrasound (Fig. 5; see para. 0040 – “A receive/transmit switch 98 [separator] isolates the receiver from the high transmit voltage during transmission.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Boser further teaches an ultrasonic probe comprising the transmission and reception device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above; Fig. 1 – “The ultrasonic imager comprises an ultrasonic imaging sensor array 18 [probe] coupled to a processor 16, such as within an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), which may be coupled to (mounted upon) the portable electronic device and/or integrated within it.” probe including transmission and reception circuitry is known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Boser further teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising the ultrasonic probe according to claim 13 (see claim 13 above; Fig. 1 imager 18 (probe) of system 10 (apparatus); see para. 0031 – “FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment 10 of an ultrasonic imaging system [ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus]. By way of example, a portable device 12, having display 14 (e.g., touch screen) is shown with an ultrasonic imager circuit to emit ultrasonic waves.” apparatus including a probe is inherent and known in the art).
The motivation for claim 2 was shown previously in claim 1.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boser in view of Wodnicki, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Davidsen (WO 2017149421 A1, published September 8, 2017), hereinafter referred to as Davidsen.
Regarding claim 3, Boser in view of Wodnicki teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Boser in view of Wodnicki teaches PMUTs, but does not explicitly teach using low frequency diaphragms and high frequency diaphragms.
Whereas, Davidsen, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the PMUT section close to the wave receiver includes a high frequency diaphragm, and the PMUT section far from the wave receiver includes a low frequency diaphragm (Fig. 8; see pg. 11, lines 1-3 – “The central region of the CMUT array is then operated at relatively higher frequencies for better performance when scanning the near field of the image field.”; see pg. 11, lines 9-10 – “The second group of the outer elements 76 thus exhibits better low frequency performance when scanning the far field of the image area.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PMUTs, as disclosed in Boser in view of Wodnicki, by using low and high frequency diaphragms, as disclosed in Davidsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to exhibit receive frequency bands appropriate for their period of use in dynamic apodization and dynamic focusing, as taught in Davidsen (see pg. 5, lines 17-19).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Davidsen further teaches a hardware processor that, when a depth of an ultrasound image is small, selects the PMUT section close to the wave receiver and causes the series connector to connect the selected PMUT section and, when the depth is large, selects the PMUT section far from the wave receiver and causes the series connector to connect the selected PMUT section (Fig. 8; see pg. 11, lines 1-3 – “The central region of the CMUT array is then operated at relatively higher frequencies for better performance when scanning the near field of the image field.”; see pg. 11, lines 9-10 – “The second group of the outer elements 76 thus exhibits better low frequency performance when scanning the far field of the image area.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Davidsen further teaches wherein the PMUT section close to the wave receiver is arranged at a position close to a center of a transmission and reception opening in an elevation direction, and the PMUT section far from the wave receiver is arranged at a position close to an outer side of the transmission and reception opening in the elevation direction (Fig. 8; see pg. 11, lines 1-3 – “The central region of the CMUT array is then operated at relatively higher frequencies for better performance when scanning the near field of the image field.”; see pg. 11, lines 9-10 – “The second group of the outer elements 76 thus exhibits better low frequency performance when scanning the far field of the image area.”).
The motivation for claims 4-5 was shown previously in claim 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boser in view of Wodnicki and Davidsen, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Panchawagh et al. (US 20170110504 A1, published April 20, 2017), hereinafter referred to as Panchawagh.
Regarding claim 7, Boser in view of Wodnicki and Davidsen teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 6 above.
Boser in view of Wodnicki and Davidsen teaches a separator, but does not explicitly teach a reverse bias diode.
Whereas, Panchawagh, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the separator includes: a diode connected to the wave transmitter and the PMUT section; and a reverse bias section that causes the diode to be in a reverse bias state at the time of the reception (Fig. 5; see para. 0071 – “For example, in a first mode of operation a “block” value or voltage applied to the receiver bias electrode 539 may bias the diode D501 to operate in a deep reverse bias mode that may cause voltages generated by the piezoelectric layer due to an ultrasonic wave to be blocked.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a separator, as disclosed in Boser in view of Wodnicki and Davidsen, by also including a reverse bias diode, as disclosed in Panchawagh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to cause voltages generated by the piezoelectric layer due to an ultrasonic wave to be blocked, as taught in Panchawagh (see para. 0071).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoo et al. (US 20180116632 A1, published May 3, 2018) discloses the switching arrangement of each of the at least one CR-TX (charge redistribution transmit) circuits include a second switch, the second switch to switchably couple the ground electrode of the at least one ultrasonic transducer to an array ground during the driving phase, and to switchably couple the ground electrode to the driving electrode via the first switch during the redistribution phase.
Wodnicki (US 20050057284 A1, published March 17, 2005) discloses switch matrix includes access switches that connect subelements to bus lines and matrix switches that connect subelements to subelements.
Van Rens (US 20200346248 A1, published November 5, 2020) discloses each coupling circuit comprises a buffer element connected between a bias voltage and a terminal of the device.
Komuro (US 20120271172 A1, published October 25, 2012) discloses signal wire is connected to one output terminal of the bias Voltage outputting section, and the other output terminal of the bias Voltage outputting section is connected to the ground.
Barnes et al. (US 20030048698 A1, published March 13, 2003) discloses by dividing an element into two sub-elements and reversing the polarity of the bias voltage applied to one of the two sub-elements, EMI Signals become common mode signals on the two sub-elements and may be canceled by amplifying the difference between the signals of the two sub-elements.
X. Jiang et al, “Ultrasonic Fingerprint Sensor With Transmit Beamforming Based on a PMUT Array Bonded to CMOS Circuitry”, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 1401-1408, Sept. 2017 discloses to protect the low-voltage RX amplifiers from the high-voltage TX signal, switches connect the top electrodes to ground during the TX phase. During the RX phase, these switches connect the 42 PMUTs in the selected column to individual RX amplifiers.
E. Ledesma et al, “Fully Integrated Pitch-Matched AlScN PMUT-on-CMOS Array for High Resolution Ultrasound Images”, IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 15954-15966, May 2024 discloses a diagram of the system where rows sharing the transmitter circuit are in the same color. This array arrangement with symmetry from the center is used to facilitate the beam focusing at different penetration depths (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights