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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/26 has been entered.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossman (US 2003/0011285 (provided in the IDS)) and in view of Breimesser et al. (US 2015/0183000).
Addressing claim 1, Ossman discloses an ultrasonic transducer, comprising:
a transducer body having a radiation surface that is curved in shape, the transducer body being configured to generate an ultrasound wave (see Figs. 1-2 and 5B-A);
a transducer cover that covers the radiation surface of the transducer body and serves as an acoustic matching layer, the transducer cover being made of resin, wherein the radiation surface is of a convex spherical shape, and the transducer cover conforms to the shape of the radiation surface and the transducer cover has a thickness that is constant (see Fig. 2 and [0043-0045]; transducer cover 206; maintaining a uniform thickness in that part of the protective cover),
Ossman does not explicitly disclose transducer cover/matching layer is more than (λ/8 + λ/40) and less than (3λ/4 - λ/40), while excluding ranges within +- λ/40 of each of λ/4, and λ/2, λ being a wavelength of a material of the transducer cover. However, this is a common feature of matching layer and a designer choice to improve bandwidth and optimize acoustic transmission. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Breimesser explicitly discloses transducer cover/matching layer is more than (λ/8 + λ/40) and less than (3λ/4 - λ/40), while excluding ranges within +- λ/40 of each of λ/4, and λ/2, λ being a wavelength of a material of the transducer cover (see col. 4, lines 50-60; matching layer thickness of 0.8 x λ/4 and 1.2 x λ/4 would meet the claim condition for matching layer thickness). Examiner only relies on Breimesser to explicitly discloses a common designer choice that improve bandwidth and acoustic transmission for the particular application.
Addressing claims 2-7, Ossman discloses:
addressing claim 2, an insulating layer provided on the transducer cover when the thickness of the transducer cover is less than 0.4 mm or when a withstand voltage of the transducer cover is less than 1500 V (see [0045]; rubber and polymer are insulator).
addressing claim 3, wherein the radiation surface of the transducer body has a radius that is 10 mm or more and 30 mm or less, and has the transducer body an opening diameter that is 10 mm or more and 50 mm or less (Ossman does not disclose the dimension of the diameter and radius of radiation surface; however, the dimension and size of transducer depend designer choice base on application; In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; also see the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the section below; as one can see from Ossman’s Fig. 5A-B; the opening diameter of transducer body is about twice the radius of curvature of radiation surface; this is roughly the same proportion as the invention; radius to diameter could have 1:1 up to 1:5 ratio; Ossman’s Fig. 5A-B discloses a 1:2 ratio which is within this range).
addressing claim 4, a transducer housing that covers the transducer body at a back side of the transducer cover; and a backing formed of air, oil, or a solid material at a back side of the transducer body (see Figs. 1-2 and 5A-B; housing 208 that covers the transducer body at a back side of the transducer cover; Ossman does not explicitly and clearly discloses backing; however, this is a common feature of the ultrasound transducer device; Komiyama explicitly discloses this common feature (see Fig. 3, solid backing material 50 at the back side of transducer 20).
addressing claim 5, wherein the transducer cover is integrally formed with the transducer housing (see Figs. 1-2 and 5B-A; housing body 208 integrate with transducer cover 206).
addressing claim 6, wherein the transducer cover is formed of a material having an elastic modulus of 2000 MPa or more and 10000 MPa or less, and an acoustic characteristic impedance of 1.5 MPa.s/m or more and MPa.s/m or less (see [0045-0046]; styrene has elastic modulus of 3000-3500 MPa; butadiene elastic modulus of 2000-2600 MPa; 1.3 Mrayl to 1.7 Mrayl equal 1.3 MPa.s/m to 1.7 MPa.s/m).
addressing claim 7, an ultrasonic treatment device, comprising: the ultrasonic transducer; and a system configured to supply energy to the ultrasonic transducer to generate ultrasonic vibration (see Fig. 3 and abstract; energy supply to transducer to take images; transducer receiver electrical energy and mechanical vibrate to produce ultrasound for imaging).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0216158 (see [0131]; radiation surface with radius of 25 mm and the diameter would be greater than the radius); US 2015/0183000 (see claim 9; radius of 10 mm and the diameter would be greater than the radius); US 2010/0257940 (see [0045-0046]; matching layer thickness of λ/5 and λ/6); US 2019/0083306 (see [0195]; odd multiple of λ/4; if the odd whole number is 3 then the matching layer thickness meet the claim condition of matching layer thickness); US 2024/0341723 (see [0057]; λ/10≤t2<λ/2) and US 2024/0181278 (see [0214]; 5/4λ).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797