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
Examiner acknowledges the claim amendments made to the claims 1, 7, 15, 16 and 19 and claims 3, 5, 9 and 11 canceled in claim prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4,6-8,10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai (US Patent No 20090248050) in view of Stulen et al. (US Patent No 20150088178) further in view of Faller (US Patent No 20060079879) further in view of Kim (US Patent No 20120150041).
Regarding claim 1, Hirai teaches an ultrasound transducer device (transducer unit 2, para [0067]) removably and rotatably mounted to a casing (handle unit 4, para [0067]), the ultrasound transducer device comprising: an ultrasound transducer configured to generate ultrasound vibration to treat body tissue (The transducer 6 generates ultrasonic vibration by a piezoelectric element which converts an electric current to ultrasonic vibration, para [0068]); a plurality of first electrodes (first contact point members 131, 132, 133 of the electrode section, para [0130]) configured to about a plurality of second electrodes provided in the casing (electrode members 87a, 87b, 87c which are assembled in the receiving sections 84,85,86 of the housing unit 4, para [0100]), each first electrode having an annular shape surrounding a rotation axis of the ultrasound transducer device, the plurality of first electrodes being annular (see fig 36 for first electrode members 131, 132, 133 seen annularly surrounding the rotation axis of the transducer unit 2), each of the plurality of first electrodes having different diameter dimensions (see fig 36 for different dimensions, see also para [0116] explaining how first electrode member 131 is smallest diameter and gets bigger in diameter for members 132 and 133); and a plurality of first support members (connection portions 121-126, para [0116]) that includes: a support base to which the plurality of first electrodes are attached (cylindrical portion 121 wherein the plurality of electrodes 131-133 are attached, para [0116]); and a plurality of first portions (connection portions 121-126, para [0116]), each first portion protruding from the support base along the rotation axis, the plurality of first portions having annular shapes (cylindrical portions, para [0116], see also fig 36 for cylindrical portions extending from the base along the rotation axis), each of the plurality of first portions having different diameters; the plurality of first deformation portions supporting the plurality of first electrodes (see fig 36 and para [0116] for connection support portions 123, 124, 125 corresponding to electrode contact point members 131, 132, 133), wherein: in each of the plurality of first portions, a protrusion length from the support base increases as a diameter of one of the first portions decreases (see para [0116] for description on how the first cylindrical connection portion 123 has the smallest radius and as second and third portions 124 and 125 have larger connection radii as they are closer to the base section), a space extending over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction around the rotation axis is provided between adjacent first deformation portions (from Hirai, there is a suggestion of a space in the circumferential direction around the support members 121-126. See Hirai fig. 36 in which a circumferential space is shown in between the support members 121-126 and the end effector 10).
Hirai doesn’t teach wherein these support members are deformable and the first deformation portion is configured to elastically deform and move the first electrode, and at least one of the first deformation portions is configured to move into the space, each first deformation portion includes a first electrode support portion configured to abut and support one of the first electrodes, and an arm portion configured to connect the first electrode support portion to the support base, and the arm portion is made of a material having a higher flexibility than that of the first electrode support portion.
However, the analogous ultrasound transducer connection device of Stulen does teach these support members are deformable and each first deformation portion is configured to elastically deform and move each first electrode (contact member 700 may be deformed from the flat shape… arms 704 are bent to bear resiliently outwardly on inner diameter surface 116 of the transducer element 110, para [0122] teaching the connection and deformation of the electrode element), and at least one of the first deformation portions is configured to move into the space, each first deformation portion includes a first electrode support portion configured to abut and support one of the first electrodes, and an arm portion configured to connect the first electrode support portion to the support base (see Stulen, Figs 18 and 19 for contact member arms 704 abutting against the transducer element 110, or the first electrode. See also contact member arms 702 which abut the inward bolt 130 or base of the transducer device), and the arm portion is made of a material having a higher flexibility than that of the first electrode support portion.
Stulen teaches that the contact arms 702 and 704 are bent into “U” shapes when compressed in order to bear inwardly on the transducer element 110 while the contact member 700 is supposed to maintain form contact with the conductive element bolt 130. Therefore, based on these teachings, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to infer that the arms have a higher flexibility than the stationary electrode support portion read as contact member 700.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the overall support structure of the electrodes of the disclosure of Hirai with the deformable support structure teachings of Stulen in order to facilitate the formation and connection of the electrode elements properly as disclosed by Stulen, para [0121].
The combination does not teach the space being disposed, in a radial direction, between an innermost one of the first deformation portions, and an outermost one of the deformation portions.
However, the analogous actuation mechanism for ultrasonic instruments taught by Faller does disclose a space being disposed, in a radial direction, between an innermost one of the first deformation portions, and an outermost one of the deformation portions (wherein the conductive rings 400 and 410 are seen as the deformation portions and there is an isolated space in between the two deformation rings, [0104], see also fig 8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings from the previous combination with that of the radial spaces between the innermost and outermost deformation portions in order to conductively isolate the portions until device actuation occurs as disclosed by Faller, [0104].
Furthermore, the combination does not explicitly teach a contact pressure between the first electrodes and the second electrodes is reduced when the first electrodes and the second electrodes are in contact with each other, and the deformation portions deform.
However, the prior art of Faller does teach a similar configuration see from Faller, [0107] - [0108], in which the contacts or deformation portions 400 and 410 are aligned with the electrical conductors 360 and 370 via a snap fit connector and alignment pin 354, so that when the conductor elements or electrodes are aligned the flex assembly 330 is deformed and electrical contact is maintained. Furthermore, the analogous ultrasonic transducer channel taught by Kim does explicitly teach a contact pressure between the first electrodes and the second electrodes is reduced when the first electrodes and the second electrodes are in contact with each other, and the deformation portions deform (see from [0064] in which the electrostatic force and pressure between the first and second electrodes 20 and 60 remain distributed between the first and second electrode, and therefore the contact force in the channel is reduced due to the deformation of the deformation portion 72, [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the previous ultrasound transducer device taught by the previous combination with that of the specific contact pressure component between the first and second electrodes taught by Kim as it allows for better readings and control between the contact pressure and energy application of the first and second electrodes of the transducer device, as taught by Kim, [0064].
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the ultrasound transducer device according to claim 1, wherein: the first deformation portion is provided with an opening penetrating from an outer peripheral surface to an inner peripheral surface (see Stulen, fig 19 for the side profile showing an opening between the deformation portion 706 and transducer shank 131 from the outer peripheral to inner peripheral surface).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the ultrasound transducer device according to claim 1, wherein: a radius of the arm portion is larger than a radius of the first electrode support portion (see Stulen, fig. 18 for arms 704 extending a greater radius than the contact support member 700).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the ultrasound transducer device according to claim 1, wherein: intermediate wiring electrically connected to the first electrode is provided inside the first support member (from Hirai, A distal end portion of the other wiring line 104 for transmission of high-frequency electricity is connected to the first conductive plate 111 found in the connection support structures, para [0115]).
Regarding claims 7-8,10 and 12, as they teach the same exact limitations of those of claims 1-6 and no new matter is introduced to the claim set while just changing the terminology of an ultrasound transducer device, used in claims 1-6, to an ultrasound treatment tool, used in claims 7-8,10 and 12they remain rejected from the prior art of record used to reject claims 1-6. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to use an ultrasound transducer device of the exact same structure of claims 1-6 for the ultrasound treatment tool of claims 7-8, 10 and 12.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the ultrasound transducer device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first support members is configured so that a contact pressure between each first electrode and a corresponding one of the plurality of second electrodes is maintained to be a predetermined contact pressure or less (see Hirai, [0111] in which the device is set to be put in constant pressure contact with the electric contact point member 96 which is responsible for maintaining the first 131 and second electrode 87 contact).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the ultrasound transducer device according to claim 1, wherein the support base is thicker in the radial direction than at least one of the plurality of first deformation portions (from Hirai, cylindrical portion 121 wherein the plurality of deformation portions 121-126 are attached, para [0116], see also fig 36 showing the cylindrical portion 121 or base in a thicker radial direction).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the ultrasound transducer device according to claim 1, further comprising: a handpiece-side electrode unit that includes the plurality of second electrodes (from Hirai, electrode members 87a, 87b, 87c which are assembled in the receiving sections 84,85,86 of the housing unit 4, para [0100]); wherein positions of the first electrodes are movable due to the deformation portions.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the ultrasound transducer device according to claim 1, wherein the deformation portions are arranged and configured such that when the ultrasound transducer device rotates (from Faller, the electrical contact is configured such a way that the transducer may be rotated during treatment, [0108]), the contact pressure between the first electrodes and the second electrodes is reduced when the first electrodes and the second electrodes are in contact with each other, and the deformation portions deform (see Faller, [0107] - [0108], in which the contacts or deformation portions 400 and 410 are aligned with the electrical conductors 360 and 370 via a snap fit connector and alignment pin 354, so that when the conductor elements or electrodes are aligned the flex assembly 330 is deformed and electrical contact is maintained).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of first support members is configured so that a contact pressure between each first electrode and a corresponding one of the plurality of second electrodes is maintained to be a predetermined contact pressure or less (see Hirai, [0111] in which the device is set to be put in constant pressure contact with the electric contact point member 96 which is responsible for maintaining the first 131 and second electrode 87 contact).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 7, wherein the support base is thicker in the radial direction than at least one of the plurality of first deformation portions (from Hirai, cylindrical portion 121 wherein the plurality of deformation portions 121-126 are attached, para [0116], see also fig 36 showing the cylindrical portion 121 or base in a thicker radial direction).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 7, further comprising: a handpiece-side electrode unit that includes the plurality of second electrodes (from Hirai, electrode members 87a, 87b, 87c which are assembled in the receiving sections 84,85,86 of the housing unit 4, para [0100]); wherein positions of the first electrodes are movable due to the deformation portions.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 7, wherein the deformation portions are arranged and configured such that when the ultrasound transducer device rotates (from Faller, the electrical contact is configured such a way that the transducer may be rotated during treatment, [0108]), the contact pressure between the first electrodes and the second electrodes is reduced when the first electrodes and the second electrodes are in contact with each other, and the deformation portions deform (see Faller, [0107] - [0108], in which the contacts or deformation portions 400 and 410 are aligned with the electrical conductors 360 and 370 via a snap fit connector and alignment pin 354, so that when the conductor elements or electrodes are aligned the flex assembly 330 is deformed and electrical contact is maintained).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 7 under Hirai in view of Stulen further in view of Faller have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hirai in view of Stulen further in view of Faller further in view of Kim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant argues that the combination of Hirai and Stulen in view of Faller would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as Stulen teaches the deformable support but does not suggest the support for holding a plurality of electrodes as Hirai discloses and as is claimed by the present invention. However, as Hirai teaches a support base that houses a plurality of electrode contacts, and Stulen discloses a deformable support member it would have been obvious to modify the disclosure of Hirai with the disclosure of Stulen to arrive at a deformable support member capable of holding a plurality of electrodes, as both individual aspects have been taught and disclosed by Hirai and Stulen prior to the effective filing date of the present application. Furthermore, applicant argues that the conductive rings taught by Faller do not align with the deformation portions that support the first electrodes. However, as previously stated the deformation portions which are taught by Stulen would allow for an obvious modification to the conductive rings which hold the electrode portions taught by Faller to contain the deformability aspect which is taught by Stulen prior to the effective filing date of the present application.
In response to the applicant’s argument that none of the prior art of record teach or suggest
“a contact pressure between the first electrodes and the second electrodes is reduced when the first electrodes and the second electrodes are in contact with each other, and the deformation portions deform,” has been considered and is partially persuasive. However, after further search and consideration it has been found that the analogous ultrasonic transducer channel taught by Kim does explicitly teach a contact pressure between the first electrodes and the second electrodes is reduced when the first electrodes and the second electrodes are in contact with each other, and the deformation portions deform (see from [0064] in which the electrostatic force and pressure between the first and second electrodes 20 and 60 remain distributed during force application, and therefore the contact force in the channel is reduced due to the deformation of the deformation portion 72, [0063]). Therefore, as the newly found prior art of record of Kim teaches the amended limitations of claims 1 and 7, they remain rejected under the new prior art of record rejection of Hirai in view of Stulen further in view of Faller further in view of Kim, set forth in the present office action.
As no further arguments were provided for dependent claims, they also remain rejected under the prior art of record through their dependency on the independent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE M BROWN whose telephone number is (703)756-4534. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00pm EST, Mon-Fri, alternating Fridays off.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. 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.
/KYLE M. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /LINDA C DVORAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794