Patent Application 17758932 - FLEXIBLE CAPACITIVE MICROMACHINED ULTRASONIC - Rejection

Patent Application 17758932 - FLEXIBLE CAPACITIVE MICROMACHINED ULTRASONIC

Title: FLEXIBLE CAPACITIVE MICROMACHINED ULTRASONIC TRANSDUCER ARRAYS

Application Information

• Invention Title: FLEXIBLE CAPACITIVE MICROMACHINED ULTRASONIC TRANSDUCER ARRAYS
• Application Number: 17758932
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-07-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-07-15T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 310
• National Sub-Class: 309000
• Examiner Employee Number: 92244
• Art Unit: 3645
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 6

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0140515🔗
• US 0050217🔗
• US 0182187🔗
• US 0133001🔗
• US 0258803🔗
• US 0090024🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

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.

Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11, 14  are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucarini (2019, IEEE Int. Ultrasonics) and Johnson (US 2017/0050217 A1; search report).
Regarding claim 1, Lucarini teaches an apparatus comprising:
	(i) a substrate at least 77.4% transparent to ionizing radiation [note: instant specification explains the best material candidate for the fabrication of poly CMUTs is polyimide and that polyimide substrate appears transparent in the x-ray image; [abstract] flexible CMUTs …ultra-thin polyimide substrate; [pg. 779, col. 1] polyimide is a polymer that, once deposited on a wafer, can be mechanically peeled off from the support together with the structures on it, thus obtaining fully flexible devices.; [fig. 6] shows polyimide substrate layer]; and
	(ii) an array of polymer-based capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers positioned on the substrate [[abstract] polymer based microfabrication approaches … capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers; [fig. 3] complete SU-8 array of 50 micrometer CMUT plates; refs. 2-3 and 7 mention cmut arrays; [fig. 5] flexible strip of CMUT devices]
	Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Johnson teaches the array comprising a first row of the transducers and electrical interconnections electrically connecting [[0005] through substrate vias … top electrodes … bottom electrode] the transducers of the first row in series [[0003] plurality of CMUT elements arranged in a CMUT array; [0044] CMUT device is shown having six CMUT elements … can be electrically isolated from one another, connected in parallel on the die … or can be connected in series; [0085] flexible electrical collectors … flexible PCB circuits … Kapton or any polyimide based material].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the array as taught by Lucarini, into a series array as taught by Johnson so that the impedance may be increased (Johnson) [[0044]].
Regarding claim 2, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ionizing radiation is x-rays [[0085] flexible PCB circuits using Kapton® or any polyimide-based material …  backing support 16 can be made up of acoustic absorbent materials such as particle filled resin, plastic, ceramic, or any other nonmetallic (i.e., transparent to x-rays and other medical imaging radiation) acoustic absorbent material].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the array as taught by Lucarini, into a series array as taught by Johnson so that the impedance may be increased (Johnson) [[0044]].
Regarding claim 4, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the array further comprises additional rows of the transducers and electrical interconnections electrically connecting the transducers of any one of the additional rows in series with each other [[0044] disclosed CMUT devices can have any number of CMUT elements, each having any number of CMUT cells … an be connected in series (on or off the die) to increase the impedance (for sensing).], and wherein the rows are positioned in parallel with each other [[0012] Multiple CMUT sensor cells can be connected in parallel (e.g., with an electrically common movable membrane 120 b) to form a CMUT element. A CMUT element can have any number (≧1) of CMUT cells].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the array as taught by Lucarini, into a parallel array as taught by Johnson typically, the more CMUT cells in an element the greater the ultrasonic output pressure that the element can generate responsive to a given stimulus (Johnson) [[0012]].
Regarding claim 9, Lucarini teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of an elastic fabric, a metal foil and a non- magnetic substrate [[abstract] polyimide substrate].
Regarding claim 11, Lucarini teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate is flexible [[title] capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers integrated on ultra-thin and flexible substrates].
Regarding claim 14, Lucarini teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of polyimide, polycarbonate, polymethylmethacrylate, aluminum and Indium Tin Oxide [[abstract] polyimide substrate].

Claims 3 and 134 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucarini (2019, IEEE Int. Ultrasonics) and Johnson (US 2017/0050217 A1; search report) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samset (US 2015/0182187 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Samset teaches the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising fiducial markers located on at least one corner of the substrate, wherein the fiducial markers are less transparent to x-rays than the substrate [[0004] ionizing radiation; [0005] commonly used technique to guide minimally invasive procedures is to combine two different imaging modalities. For example, X-ray fluoroscopy may be used for overview and invasive device visualization, while 3D ultrasound may be used for detailed anatomical structure assessment and 3D navigation; [0027] CMUT; [0036] fiducial marker 138 may include a radiopaque material, such as lead or another material that would be easily visible in an X-ray image; [0037-0039] skin patch 140 includes the substrate 122, a single transducer element 136, a single fiducial marker 138 and a wireless communication module 142].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate as taught by Lucarini, with the substrate marked with a radiopaque fiducial marker as taught by Samset so that ultrasound and x-ray images may be aligned (Samset) [[0005]].
Regarding claim 134, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Samset teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is used to for generating an ultrasonic signal while an x-ray image is obtained through the apparatus [[0005] commonly used technique to guide minimally invasive procedures is to combine two different imaging modalities. For example, X-ray fluoroscopy may be used for overview and invasive device visualization, while 3D ultrasound may be used for detailed anatomical structure assessment and 3D navigation; [0036] skin patch includes an ultrasound transducer module…skin patch also includes a fiducial marker module including at least one fiducial marker. the fiducial marker may include a radiopaque material … that would be easily visible in an X-ray image; [0045] non-ultrasound data of the patient is acquired after the skin patches have been attached … non-ultrasound data may include x-ray data].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate as taught by Lucarini, with the substrate marked with a radiopaque fiducial marker as taught by Samset so that ultrasound and x-ray images may be aligned (Samset) [[0005]].

Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucarini (2019, IEEE Int. Ultrasonics) and Johnson (US 2017/0050217 A1; search report) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitchens (US 2017/0090024 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Kitchens teaches the apparatus of any one of claim 1, wherein the substrate is substantially transparent to at least one of ultraviolet light, visible light, and infrared light [[0082] aluminum nitride (AlN) or lead zirconate titanate (PZT). The ultrasonic sensor array 102 may, in some examples, include an array of ultrasonic transducer elements, such as an array of piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducers (PMUTs), an array of capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers (CMUTs), etc. In some such examples, a piezoelectric receiver layer, PMUT elements in a single-layer array of PMUTs, or CMUT elements in a single-layer array of CMUTs, may be used as ultrasonic transmitters as well as ultrasonic receivers; [0083] transmitted ultrasonic waves 214 have been transmitted from the ultrasonic transmitter 108 through a sensor stack 215 and into an overlying finger 206. The various layers of the sensor stack 215 may, in some examples, include one or more substrates of glass or other material (such as plastic or sapphire) that is substantially transparent to visible light].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the array as taught by Lucarini, with a visible light transparent substrate as taught by Kitchens so that fingerprints may be read (Kitchens) [[fig. 2d][fig. 4]].

Claim 37-39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucarini (2019, IEEE Int. Ultrasonics) and Johnson (US 2017/0050217 A1; search report) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oliver (US 2007/0140515 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Oliver teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising light waveguides embedded in the substrate [[prior art claim 11] The capacitive membrane transducer of claim 6 wherein the cell is formed, at least in part, in a semiconductor substrate, and wherein the light source is a channel in the semiconductor substrate, the channel connecting with the cell.; [prior art claim 12] light source is a waveguide].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, with light waveguide as taught by Oliver so that static charge is dissipated (Oliver) [0003].
Regarding claim 38, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Oliver teaches the apparatus of claim 37, wherein the light waveguides terminate in the transducers [[prior art claim 9] The capacitive membrane transducer of claim 6 wherein the light source is directed within the cavity.].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, with light waveguide as taught by Oliver so that static charge is dissipated (Oliver) [0003].
Regarding claim 39, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Oliver teaches the apparatus of claim 37, wherein the light waveguides terminate in the substrate outside of the transducers [[prior art claim 5] The capacitive membrane ultrasound transducer of claim 3 wherein the channel is a waveguide.; [prior art claim 6] A capacitive membrane transducer for reducing static charge, the capacitive membrane transducer comprising: at least one cell comprising a membrane, cavity and a first electrode; and a light source directed at the at least one cell.].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, with light waveguide as taught by Oliver so that static charge is dissipated (Oliver) [0003].

Claims 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucarini (2019, IEEE Int. Ultrasonics) and Johnson (US 2017/0050217 A1; search report) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Memon (2016, IEEE).
Regarding claim 40, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Memon teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: (i) a wireless transmitter communicatively coupled to the transducers [[abstract] capsule ultrasound device … CMUT array, front end electronics, and the wireless transmitter]; and (ii) a battery electrically coupled to the wireless transmitter and to the transducers [[sec. v. power analysis] capsule-based devices, as they are powered by two 1.5 V batteries that provide 20 mW for up to 8 hours], wherein the wireless transmitter is configured to wirelessly transmit ultrasound data obtained using the transducers to a controller [[first page, col. 2] interfacing with the CMUT array and a wireless transmitter for sending the beamformed data to an external receiver].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, with the wireless transmitter and battery power as taught by Memon so that ultrasound data may be obtained remotely in the body (Memon) [abstract].

Claims 122 and 125-128 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucarini (2019, IEEE Int. Ultrasonics) and Johnson (US 2017/0050217 A1; search report) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tkaczky (US 2012/0133001 A1).
Regarding claim 122, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Tkaczyk teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is used for at least one of structural integrity testing, pipeline monitoring, and hydraulic testing [[0003] Various applications, such as biomedical non-invasive diagnostics and non-destructive testing (NDT) of materials entail the use of sensor arrays, where the sensors are often configured in two-dimensions (that is, the X-Y plane). For example, ultrasonic transducer arrays are used in medical imaging, non-destructive evaluation (NDE) and other applications.; [0027] equipment diagnostics and inspections].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, equipment inspection as taught by Tkaczky for imaging (Tkaczyk) [[0003][0027-0028]].
Regarding claim 125, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Tkaczyk teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is used for aircraft wing non-destructive testing [[0003] ultrasonic transducer arrays are used in medical imaging, non-destructive evaluation (NDE) and other applications].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, non-destructive testing as taught by Tkaczky for imaging (Tkaczyk) [[0003][0027-0028]].
Regarding claim 126, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Tkaczyk teaches the apparatus of any one of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is used for a medical diagnostic [[0003] medical imaging].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, non-destructive testing as taught by Tkaczky for imaging (Tkaczyk) [[0003][0027-0028]].
Regarding claim 127, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Tkaczyk teaches the apparatus of any one of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is used for performing an ultrasound of a breast while a mammography is being performed on the breast [[0004] ultrasound and mammography, it may be desirable to employ sensors that encompass large area].
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, mammography as taught by Tkaczky for medical imaging (Tkaczyk) [[0003][0027-0028]].
Regarding claim 128, Lucarini does not explicitly teach and yet Tkaczyk teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is used for at least one of:(i) one or both of chemical and/or biological testing [[0003] medical imaging; [0004] ultrasound and mammography]; (ii) heart monitoring; (iii) blood pressure monitoring, and(iv) cleaning debris, wherein the debris comprises one or more of dirt, dust, water, ice and blood.
	It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the array as taught by Lucarini, mammography as taught by Tkaczky for medical imaging (Tkaczyk) [[0003][0027-0028]].

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 19-20, 22-23, 27, and 31-32 are 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.

Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the apparatus of claim 4, further comprising electrical interconnections spanning across the rows such that the transducers comprise an electrically interconnected matrix, wherein the transducers comprise dyed polymer, wherein a portion of the side of the substrate on which the array of transducers is positioned is adhesive, and wherein the portion that is adhesive is located around the array.
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura (US 2013/0258803 A1; search report) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising two rows of walls extending from a same side of the substrate as the transducers of the first row and positioned such that the first row of the transducers is between the two rows of walls, wherein the walls are taller than the first row of transducers [[fig. 4] shows partitions #51 between transducer elements #23 along with substrate base #44; [0010] partition wall is for the purpose of preventing crosstalk between ultrasonic transducer elements]. However, Nakamura does not show that the two rows of walls extend from a same side of the substrate as the transducers. Claims 20, 22-23, 27, and 31 depend on claim 19.
Regarding claim 32, the closest art of record (WO 2024/011328 A1) does not appear to teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a tape for applying in rows to an object, wherein the tape comprises top bondpads along a top surface of the tape, bottom bondpads along a bottom surface of the tape, and vias through the tape respectively electrically connecting pairs of the top and bottom bondpads, wherein the bondpads are positioned such that the adjacent rows of the tape overlap each other and the top bondpads of one of the adjacent rows contact the bottom bondpads of the other of the adjacent rows. wherein the top and bottom bondpads respectively extend along edges of the top and bottom surfaces, wherein the rows of the transducers extend non-orthogonally relative to edges of the tape to facilitate the applying of the tape to a curved surface, wherein the tape comprises a relief alignment lock-in pattern positioned to facilitate overlapping of the bondpads, and wherein the relief alignment lock-in pattern comprises a protrusion on one of the top and bottom surfaces and a corresponding recess in the other of the top and bottom surfaces.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/            Examiner, Art Unit 3645