DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 13-16, 18, and 19 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 13-16, and 18 are amended.
Claim 19 is new.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11 and 17 are canceled.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 13-16, 18, and 19 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. The rejection is now made in view of the previously cited prior art and additionally in view of Allen et al (WO 2010/048038). Allen teaches a flexible housing for an ultrasonic transducer.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/575,658 in view of Yao et al (CN 102423640 A, English machine translation provided) and Allen et al (WO 2010/048038).
Regarding claim 1:
The claims of the copending application disclose an apparatus for reducing concentration polarization and/or membrane fouling in a membrane separation process and/or a filter unit cleaning process, wherein the apparatus comprises: a signal generator configured to generate electrical signals when there is a fluid flow in the filter unit (“control system that generates one or more electrical signals” regardless of flow, therefore it is configured to generate if there is flow. Claims do not exclude generating electrical signals when there is no flow), wherein the signal generator comprises, one or more converters adapted to receive power from a power source and modify the electrical signals (converters and a power source are inherent as electric signals are generated and the transducer receives the signals); and an ultrasonic transducer assembly configured to receive the electrical signals from the signal generator, wherein the ultrasonic transducer assembly comprises, an array of transducers comprising one or more ultrasonic transducers configured to generate ultrasonic waves when the ultrasonic transducer assembly receives the electrical signals from the signal generator (see claim 1), a housing (holder) comprising the array of transducers enables the positioning of each of the one or more ultrasonic transducers around the filter unit (envelop the non-planar target) (see claim 2) when the housing and the filter unit are combined, wherein the housing is configured wrap around (envelop) the filter unit (see claim 2); wherein, the ultrasonic waves generated by the array of transducers pass into the non-planar target, the ultrasonic waves generate at least one of (i) a turbulence in the flow of fluid, (ii) a vibration of molecules within the fluid, (iii) currents within the fluid, (iv) compression and expansion of air bubbles within the fluid, (v) shockwaves within the fluid, or (vi) a vibration on the membrane surface to dislodge particles clogging the membrane surface, thereby reducing the concentration (see claim 1).
The claims of the copending application do not disclose that the non-planar target is a filter unit comprising a membrane surface or coupling medium layer positioned between the array of transducers and the filter unit to enable the transmission of the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit. The claims further do not disclose the housing (holder) is flexible.
Yao teaches the combination of an ultrasonic transducer and a filter unit comprising a membrane surface (membrane component) (see abstract) and coupling medium layer (ultrasonic conducting medium) positioned between an array of transducers and a filter unit (see para. 0008).
Allen teaches a housing (body) for an ultrasonic transducer that is flexible and configure to wrap around a non-planer target (fairing) (see pg. 13 lines 1-7).
The claims of the copending application, Yao, and Allen are analogous inventions in the art of ultrasonic transducers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the signal generator and ultrasonic transducer of the copending claims to the filter unit of Yao because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found an appropriate application for the apparatus for generating ultrasonic waves. It would have further been obvious to add the coupling medium layer of Yao to the to the apparatus of the copending application because it is the simple addition of a known material to a known device, obviously resulting in the transmission of ultrasonic waves, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the housing of the copending claims flexible, as disclosed by Allen because it allows the ultrasonic cleaning device to be positioned around different devices (see Allen pg. 2 lines 1-6) and because the use of a known technique (making something flexible) to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 2:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the electrical signals comprise at least one of (i) one or more frequencies in a range of 50 Kilo Hertz (kHz) to 3 Mega Hertz (MHz), (ii) one or more power outputs in a range of 5 Watts (W) to 1 kilowatt (kW), or (iii) constant signals or signals varying in time with respect to frequency, power output or pulse characteristics (signals inherently either constant or varying).
Regarding Claim 16:
The claims of the copending application disclose the apparatus for reducing concentration polarization and/or membrane fouling in a membrane separation process and/or a filter unit cleaning process, wherein the apparatus comprises: a non-planar target; a signal generator configured to generate electrical signals, wherein the signal generator comprises, one or more converters adapted to receive power from a power source and modify the electrical signals; an ultrasonic transducer assembly configured to receive the electrical signals from the signal generator, wherein the ultrasonic transducer assembly comprises, an array of transducers comprising one or more ultrasonic transducers configured to generate ultrasonic waves when the ultrasonic transducer assembly receives the electrical signals from the signal generator (see claim 1), a housing (holder) comprising the array of transducers enables the positioning of each of the one or more ultrasonic transducers around the non-planer target (see claim 2) when the housing and the non-planar target are combined, wherein the housing (holder) is configured to wrap (envelop) around the non-planar target; wherein, the ultrasonic waves generated by the array of transducers pass into the non-planar target, the ultrasonic waves generate at least one of (i) a turbulence in the flow of fluid, (ii) a vibration of molecules within the fluid, (iii) currents within the fluid, (iv) compression and expansion of air bubbles within the fluid, (v) shockwaves within the fluid, or (vi) a vibration on the membrane surface to dislodge particles clogging the membrane surface, thereby reducing the concentration polarization and/or the membrane fouling on the membrane surface of the filter unit, which in turn, increases the efficiency of the membrane separation process and/or the filter unit cleaning process (cause at least turbulence in a flow of fluids) (see claim 1).
The claims of the copending application do not disclose that the non-planar target is a filter unit comprising a membrane surface or coupling medium layer positioned between the array of transducers and the filter unit to enable the transmission of the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit. The claims further do not disclose the housing (holder) is flexible.
Yao teaches the combination of an ultrasonic transducer and a filter unit comprising a membrane surface (membrane component) (see abstract) and coupling medium layer (ultrasonic conducting medium) positioned between an array of transducers and a filter unit (see para. 0008).
Allen teaches a housing (body) for an ultrasonic transducer that is flexible and configure to wrap around a non-planer target (fairing) (see pg. 13 lines 1-7).
The claims of the copending application, Yao, and Allen are analogous inventions in the art of ultrasonic transducers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the signal generator and ultrasonic transducer of the copending claims to the filter unit of Yao because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found an appropriate application for the apparatus for generating ultrasonic waves. It would have further been obvious to add the coupling medium layer of Yao to the to the apparatus of the copending application because it is the simple addition of a known material to a known device, obviously resulting in the transmission of ultrasonic waves, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the housing of the copending claims flexible, as disclosed by Allen because it allows the ultrasonic cleaning device to be positioned around different devices (see Allen pg. 2 lines 1-6) and because the use of a known technique (making something flexible) to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 4:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the array of transducers is positioned around the filter unit to direct the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit from more than one direction (see copending application claim 2).
Regarding Claim 7:
The claims of the copending application, as modified, disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the one or more transducers are positioned around the filter unit in a non-invasive and a separable manner (see copending application, claim 2).
Regarding Claim 8:
The copending application, as modified, discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the coupling medium layer is positioned between the array of transducers and the filter unit to enable the transmission of the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit, and wherein the housing encloses the coupling medium layer between the array of transducers and the filter unit (see Yao pg. 2, para. 0008).
Regarding Claim 9:
The copending application, as modified, discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein one or more components of the apparatus exist as at least one of (i) separate units, (ii) in combination, or (iii) a part of another machine or apparatus (see copending application, claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13:
The copending application, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the filter unit is cylindrical (see Yao fig. 2), and the surface profile of the one or more ultrasonic transducers matches a cylindrical surface profile of the filter unit (matched surface geometry) (see copending application, claim 3).
Regarding Claim 14:
The copending application, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the housing wraps around the filter unit of different diameters and/or shapes, wherein the housing includes a length and a dimension suitable for the filter unit of different dimensions and/or shapes (see copending application, claim 3).
Regarding Claim 18:
The copending application, as modified, discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the electrical signals comprise one or more frequencies in a range of 200 Kilo Hertz (kHz) to 3 Mega Hertz (MHz). Claims are directed to an apparatus, frequency is a method limitation dependent on the operation of the apparatus. As the apparatus of the copending application has a control system for electrical signals the frequencies could be within the claimed range (see copending application, claim 1).
Regarding Claim 19:
The copending application, as modified, discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein a surface profile of the one or more ultrasonic transducers matches a surface profile of the filter unit to reduce a gap between the one or more ultrasonic transducers and the filter unit (see copending application claim 3).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN 102423640 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Coric (EP 0904820, English machine translation provided) and Allen et al (WO 2010/048038).
Regarding Claim 1:
Yao teaches the apparatus for reducing concentration polarization and/or membrane fouling in a membrane separation process and/or a filter cleaning process (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph), wherein the apparatus comprises: a filter unit (membrane assembly 10) (see para. 0005) a signal generator (control program that can determine running status of the membrane system) configured to generate electrical signals, wherein the signal generator comprises, one or more converters (ultrasound control system) adapted to receive power from a power source (device is operating, therefore there inherently a power source) and modify the electrical signals (all electrical signals have at least one of a frequency, intensity or pulse characteristic, control program uses the information as inputs and power and frequency as output, as the input affects the output the signal is modified) (see claim 5); an ultrasonic transducer assembly configured to receive the electrical signals from the signal generator, wherein the ultrasonic transducer assembly (transducer element ) comprises, an array of transducers comprising one or more ultrasonic transducers (ultrasonic transducer 2, four are shown in figure 1), and the filter unit configured to generate ultrasonic waves when the ultrasonic transducer receives the electrical signals from the signal generator (see pg. 2 para. 0006), a housing (transducer base 4) comprising the array of transducers (see para. 0016, fig. 1) enables the positioning of each of the one or more ultrasonic transducers around the filter unit when the housing and the filter unit are combined (tightly fixed on the shell) (see pg. 2, para. 0005), wherein the housing is configured to wrap around the filter unit (see figs. 1 and 2); and a coupling medium layer (ultrasonic conducting medium) positioned between the array of transducers and the filter unit to enable the transmission of the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit (see pg. 2, para. 0008) wherein the ultrasonic waves generated by the array of transducers pass into the filter unit comprising a membrane surface (is a membrane assembly therefore there is inherently a membrane surface)(see para. 0005), the ultrasonic waves generate at least one of (i) a turbulence in the flow of fluid, (ii) a vibration of molecules within the fluid, (iii) currents within the fluid, (iv) compression and expansion of air bubbles within the fluid (cavitation), (v) shockwaves within the fluid, or (vi) a vibration on the membrane surface to dislodge particles clogging the membrane surface, thereby reducing the concentration polarization and/or the membrane fouling on the membrane surface of the filter unit, which in turn, increases the efficiency of the membrane separation process and/or the filter cleaning process (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph).
Yao does not teach that the signal generator is configured to generate electrical signals when there is a fluid flow in the filter unit or that the housing is flexible.
Coric teaches an apparatus for reducing concentration polarization and/or membrane fouling in a membrane separation process and/or a filter cleaning process, wherein the apparatus comprises: a filter unit a signal generator (sensor that controls the ultrasound emitter) (see pg. 2, 2nd paragraph) configured to generate electrical signals when there is a fluid flow in the filter unit (based on the flow rate) (see pg. 2, 2nd paragraph).
Allen teaches a housing (body) for an ultrasonic transducer that is flexible and configure to wrap around a non-planer target (fairing) (see pg. 13 lines 1-7).
Yao and Coric are analogous inventions in the art of ultrasound based membrane cleaning devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the signal generator of Yao to generate an electrical signal when there is fluid flow in the filter, as disclosed by Coric, because it avoids a halt in operations, while still preventing clogging (see Coric, pg. 1 paragraphs 2-6).
Yao and Allen are analogous inventions in the art of positionable ultrasonic cleaning devices. It would have been obvious one skilled in the art to use a flexible material for the housing of Yao, as disclosed by Allen because it allows the ultrasonic cleaning device to be positioned around different devices (see Allen pg. 2 lines 1-6) and because the use of a known technique (making something flexible) to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrical signals comprise at least one of (i) one or more frequencies in a range of 50 Kilo Hertz (kHz) to 3 Mega Hertz (MHz), (ii) one or more power outputs in a range of 5 Watts (W) to 1 kilowatt (kW), or (iii) constant signals or signals varying in time with respect to frequency, power output or pulse characteristics (there are signals, therefore they are either constant or varying) (see Yao pg. 4 claim 5).
Claim(s) 4, 7-9, 13, 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN 102423640 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Allen et al (WO 2010/048038).
Regarding Claim 16:
Yao teaches the apparatus for reducing concentration polarization and/or membrane fouling in a membrane separation process and/or a filter cleaning process (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph), wherein the apparatus comprises: a filter unit (membrane assembly 10) (see para. 0005) a signal generator (control program that can determine running status of the membrane system) configured to generate electrical signals, wherein the signal generator comprises, one or more converters (ultrasound control system) adapted to receive power from a power source (device is operating, therefore there inherently a power source) and modify the electrical signals (all electrical signals have at least one of a frequency, intensity or pulse characteristic, control program uses the information as inputs and power and frequency as output, as the input affects the output the signal is modified) (see claim 5); an ultrasonic transducer assembly configured to receive the electrical signals from the signal generator, wherein the ultrasonic transducer assembly (transducer element ) comprises, an array of transducers comprising one or more ultrasonic transducers (ultrasonic transducer 2, four are shown in figure 1), and the filter unit configured to generate ultrasonic waves when the ultrasonic transducer receives the electrical signals from the signal generator (see pg. 2 para. 0006), a housing (transducer base 4) comprising the array of transducers (see para. 0016, fig. 1) enables the positioning of each of the one or more ultrasonic transducers around the filter unit when the housing and the filter unit are combined (tightly fixed on the shell) (see pg. 2, para. 0005), wherein the housing is configured to wrap around the filter unit (see figs. 1 and 2); and a coupling medium layer (ultrasonic conducting medium) positioned between the array of transducers and the filter unit to enable the transmission of the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit (see pg. 2, para. 0008) wherein the ultrasonic waves generated by the array of transducers pass into the filter unit comprising a membrane surface (is a membrane assembly therefore there is inherently a membrane surface)(see para. 0005), the ultrasonic waves generate at least one of (i) a turbulence in the flow of fluid, (ii) a vibration of molecules within the fluid, (iii) currents within the fluid, (iv) compression and expansion of air bubbles within the fluid (cavitation), (v) shockwaves within the fluid, or (vi) a vibration on the membrane surface to dislodge particles clogging the membrane surface, thereby reducing the concentration polarization and/or the membrane fouling on the membrane surface of the filter unit, which in turn, increases the efficiency of the membrane separation process and/or the filter cleaning process (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph).
Yao does not teach that the housing is flexible.
Allen teaches a housing (body) for an ultrasonic transducer that is flexible and configure to wrap around a non-planer target (fairing) (see pg. 13 lines 1-7).
Yao and Allen are analogous inventions in the art of positionable ultrasonic cleaning devices. It would have been obvious one skilled in the art to use a flexible material for the housing of Yao, as disclosed by Allen because it allows the ultrasonic cleaning device to be positioned around different devices (see Allen pg. 2 lines 1-6) and because the use of a known technique (making something flexible) to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 4:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, where in the array of transducers is positioned around the filter unit to direct the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit from more than one direction (transducers are moved to be in any position, therefore they direct the waves from more than one direction) (see Yao pg. 2, para. 0009)
Regarding Claim 7:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the one or more transducers are positioned around the filter unit in a non-invasive (the base 4 is outside the filter unit therefore it is non-invasive) and a separable manner (can be detached) (see Yao pg. 2 para. 008, fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the coupling medium layer is positioned between the array of transducers and the filter unit to enable the transmission of the ultrasonic waves into the filter unit, and wherein the housing encloses the coupling medium (conducting medium is filled in the base) layer between the array of transducers and the filter unit (see Yao pg. 2, para. 0008)
Regarding Claim 9:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein one or more components of the apparatus exist as at least one of (i) separate units, (ii) in combination, or (iii) a part of another machine or apparatus (see Yao fig, 1, there are multiple components in combination).
Regarding Claim 13:
Yao, as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the filter unit is cylindrical (defined by the diameter and length, therefore cylindrical is inherent) (see Yao para. 0017, fig. 2), and the surface profile of the one or more ultrasonic transducers matches a cylindrical surface profile of the filter unit (tightly fixed and can move around the filter unit) (see Yao para. 0016, 0018).
Regarding Claim 14:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the housing wraps around the filter unit (firmly fixed) (see Yao para. 0016) of different diameters, wherein the housing includes a length and a dimension suitable for the filter unit of different dimensions and shapes (see Yao fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the electrical signals comprise one or more frequencies in a range of 200 Kilo Hertz (kHz) to 3 Mega Hertz (MHz). The claim is directed to an apparatus, not a method. Method limitations only add patentable weight to apparatus claims to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same limitations. The frequencies are a method limitation, as Yao teaches adjustable frequencies, they could be in the range claimed (see Yao para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 19:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein a surface profile of the one or more ultrasonic transducers matches a surface profile of the filter unit to reduce a gap between the one or more ultrasonic transducers and the filter unit (transducer base is tightly fixed on the shell, further fig. 1 shows the ultrasonic transducer matching the surface provide of the filter unit) (see Yao, pg. , para. 0008, fig. 1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN 102423640 A, English Machine translation provided) and Allen et al (WO 2010/048038) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (CN 102139186 B, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 15:
Yao, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the array of transducers comprise two or more transducers (see Yao fig, 1).
Yao does not teach wherein at least one transducer in the array of transducers differs from another transducer based on the piezoelectric crystals used.
Lu teaches ultrasonic transducers for cleaning a membrane wherein the transducers contain piezoelectric crystals (see para. 0012). Lu further teaches that the frequency and power can be set (see para. 0028).
Yao and Lu are analogous inventions in the art of ultrasonic membrane cleaning apparatus. It would have been obvious to use piezoelectric crystals, as disclosed by Lu, in the transducers of Yao because it is the simple substitution of one ultrasonic transducer element with another known ultrasonic transducer element, obviously resulting in the generation of ultrasonic vibrations. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As modified piezoelectric crystals are used, therefore the differences in the transducers (frequency, power) are based on the piezoelectric crystals used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 2/18/2026