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 filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendments to claim 1, rejections under 35 USC 112 have been made.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments pages 5-8, that Mihara does not teach the claimed chemical compositions of the resin. Each claimed resin composition (A), (B), and (C) comprises “a polyamine compound”; in what capacity the polyamine compound functions is not specified. Paragraph [0044] of Mihara teaches that “A maleic acid imide resin can be obtained by condensing maleic acid or its anhydride with a diamine or a polyamine”. Examiner asserts that this reads on the claimed composition of a resin with a polyamine compound. Despite Applicant’s arguments, a level of specificity regarding the polyamine compound is not present in the claim language to overcome this recitation of Mihara. Examiner upholds the use of Mihara to teach the claimed (B) and (C) resin products. Furthermore, newly-found reference of Ebata has been incorporated into the rejection, and Examiner asserts that Ebata reads on the claimed (A), (B), and (C) resin products. Ebata further teaches the claimed tanδmin and tanδmax values for the resin.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments pages 8-9, that combining the backing material of Mihara into the ultrasound probe of Morita would not have been obvious. Although Mihara is not directed towards ultrasound imaging, Examiner asserts that using resins as backing materials in ultrasound devices is well known in the art. Morita teaches such, and Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any similar resin material can be substituted for the resin backing material of Morita.
Regarding claim 5, although Mihara and Ebata do not teach the exact values of viscosity and shear rate, Examiner asserts that the resin products of Mihara and Ebata have the same chemical compositions and mechanical properties (loss tangent, storage elastic modulus, etc.) as the claimed resin. Thus, one can assume that these materials will also have a viscosity in the claimed range when measured at the claimed shear rate. Examiner upholds the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claims 6 & 7, Examiner upholds that Mihara and Ebata teach the claimed chemical compositions.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the dynamic viscoelasticity measurement device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 & 6 depend from claim 1, and, therefore, inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihara (US 2018/0346767) in view of Morita (US 2021/0113187) and Ebata (US 2024/0326395).
Regarding claim 1, Mihara teaches a backing material for an ultrasound probe, comprising:
thermally conductive particles (metal particle (Q), [0030]-[0032]); and
a resin (resin (M), [0030]), wherein the resin includes any one of the following:
(B) a reaction cured ([0045] & [0049]) product of an epoxy resin (epoxy resin, [0043]) and a polyamine compound ([0044]), the reaction cured product having a polyether structure (“an epoxy resin including a molecular backbone derived from a glycidyl ether”, [0043]); and
(C) a reaction cured ([0045] & [0049]) product of a polyisocyanate compound ([0135]) and a polyamine compound ([0044]);
a lost tangent (tanδmax) of the resin in a range of -20°C to 110°C is less than 1.50 ([0083]); and
Although the loss tangent is measured at 60°C, it is not expected that decreasing the temperature 10°C to 50°C will decrease the loss tangent from 1.4 or higher to below 0.06.
a storage elastic modulus of the backing material in a range of 0°C to 50°C (room temperature, [0151]) is 1000 MPa or more ([0077]).
However, Mihara fails to disclose that a loss tangent (tanδmin) of the resin in a range of 0°C to 50°C is 0.06 or more and 0.40 or less.
Ebata teaches that a loss tangent (tanδmin) of the resin in a range of 0°C to 50°C is 0.06 or more and 0.40 or less ([0076]).
Any resin that satisfies the claimed tanδmin also satisfies the claimed tanδmax.
Ebata further teaches that the resin includes:
(A) a reaction cured ([0078]) product of an epoxy resin ([0068]-[0069]) having a polyurethane structure ([0069]) and a polyamine compound ([0039]);
(B) a reaction cured ([0078]) product of an epoxy resin ([0068]-[0069]) and a polyamine compound ([0039]), the reaction cured product having a polyether structure ([0070]); and
(C) a reaction cured ([0078]) product of a polyisocyanate compound ([0069]) and a polyamine compound ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of Mihara such that a loss tangent (tanδmin) of the resin in a range of 0°C to 50°C is 0.06 or more and 0.40 or less, as taught by Ebata. A low loss tangent results in improved signal transmission.
However, Mihara fails to disclose that a content of the resin in the backing material is 25% to 50% by volume.
Morita teaches that a content of the resin (matrix resin, [0037]) in the backing material (backing material 170, [0020]) is 25% to 50% by volume ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of Mihara such that a content of the resin in the backing material is 25% to 50% by volume, as taught by Morita. This range allows the resin to contribute significant mechanical properties to the backing material, while also allowing room for other components such as a substrate and the thermally-conductive particles.
Regarding the limitation that “the loss tangent of the backing material is measured under conditions of a grip distance of 20 mm, a temperature rise rate of 2°C/min, a measurement temperature range of -150°C to 250°C, and a frequency of 5 Hz, using the dynamic viscoelasticity measurement device”, these are found to be non-critical parameters of measuring the loss tangent. It is well known in the art that these variables comprise dynamic mechanical analysis, and achieving these exact claimed values is merely a matter of routine experimentation and optimization. Examiner asserts that a resin of the claimed chemical composition and loss tangent (such as those claimed in Mihara and Ebata) would exhibit a similar loss tangent if measured at these parameters.
Regarding claim 2, Mihara in view of Morita and Ebata teach the backing material according to claim 1, and Mihara further teaches that the thermally conductive particles include metal particles ([0030]-[0032]).
Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1. Because Mihara teaches a resin of the claimed chemical composition and material properties, it is expected that it will also have a viscosity of 5000 Pa·sec or less under conditions of 25°C and a shear rate of 0.01/sec.
Claim 6 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Mihara and Ebata, as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Morita teaches an ultrasound probe (ultrasonic probe 100, [0020]) comprising the backing material according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound probe of Morita to include the backing material of Mihara. Morita teaches that the backing material comprises a resin including a polyamine compound ([0095]) and either a polyether structure ([0060]) or a polyisocyanate compound ([0037], [0060]) (polyisocyanate is a component of polyurethane). Thus, it is well-known in the art that a backing material of the same materials as the one in Mihara has application in an ultrasound probe.
Regarding claim 4, Morita teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 10, [0024]) using the ultrasound probe according to claim 3 ([0097] & Figure 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asay (US 2012/0211160) teaches that a viscosity of the curable ([0017]) resin composition ([0020] & [0023]) is 5000 Pa·sec or less (Tables 3 & 5) under conditions of 25°C ([0138]) and a shear rate of 0.01/sec ([0138]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
