DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments appear to be narrower than the scope of the claims, specifically the argument on page 1 "such solutions are lacking in the ability to position such a trap in a dimension perpendicular to the acoustically reflecting surface in a reliable and flexible manner. Further, once an object is held in a trap position it is difficult to move the object continuously to another trap position". At most, the claimed invention claims a standard standing wave in which a pressure minimum is created between 2 pressure maximums in which an object is levitated. Both Barmatz and Danley read on an acoustic levitation system which consists of an acoustic transducer array, a reflecting surface and a controller. Barmatz teaches a standing wave pattern in Column 1, which is conventionally known to have a pressure minimum and 2 pressure maximums. Applicant does not clarify the difference between "effective standing wave pattern" and a "standing wave pattern". The claimed description following the term "effective standing wave pattern" defines a standing standing wave pattern.
As evidence, it can be seen in Figure 1 of "Kandemir et al. "standing wave acoustic levitation on an annular plate". Journal of Sound and Vibration. 2016" that a standing wave pattern has an object levitating at the pressure minimum and there are 2 pressure maximums along the Z-axis that are above and below the pressure minimum, and also in opposing phases. This is what is known as a standing wave pattern and reads on the claim language "controller configured to generate the control signal such that interfering incident and reflected waves of the acoustic energy emitted towards an acoustically reflective surface form an effective standing wave pattern where first and second pressure maximum regions are created at first and second distances respectively from the acoustically reflective surface which first and second pressure maximum regions are of opposite phase to one another, and a pressure minimum point is created between the first and second pressure maximum regions." It can be seen in that Figure 1 that a standing wave pattern has 2 pressure maximums at different distances from the reflective surface, with a pressure minimum at a certain distance from the pressure maximums and reflective surface. Applicant argues that the prior arts are equating the claimed "effective standing wave pattern" with a conventional standing wave pattern, however, based on the claimed language, there does not appear to be any distinction between the two terms. A standing wave pattern comprises an acoustic field generated by an acoustic source in which 2 separate pressure maximum regions are created at a desired distance, and these 2 maximums are out of phase. A standing wave pattern is generated in Barmatz and a standing wave pattern, as seen in Kandemir, teaches a pressure field that is generate/engineered/programmed to create pressure maximums around a pressure minimum to levitate an object. This reads on the claimed language; therefore the prior arts teach the invention and the arguments are not persuasive.
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) 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danley US 4841495 in view of Barmatz US 4393706.
As to claim 1, Danley teaches “An acoustic levitation system (Abstract) comprising: at least one acoustic transducer array configured to emit acoustic energy of periodically varying intensity (Figure 5, 62. It can be seen that the vibrator is connected to an oscillator and amplifier, presumably so that the energy from the vibrator can be adjusted as needed), each of the at least one acoustic transducer array comprising a set of transducer elements arranged on a surface extending in two or three dimensions (Column 4, lines 40-44), the transducer elements being controllable in response to a control signal so as to emit the acoustic energy at a wavelength (Column 1, lines 63-66); reflected waves of the acoustic energy emitted towards an acoustically reflective surface form an effective standing wave pattern (Figure 5, 68).” Danley does not explicitly teach a controller but does teach an oscillator and amplifier which control the energy provided to the vibrator. Danley does not explicitly teach the first and second pressure regions and a pressure minimum, however, in the field of acoustic levitation, this is a given since this regional pressure difference is what creates the pressure pocket for the object to levitate within.
Barmatz teaches “and a phase delay determined by the control signal (Column 1, lines 20-26), and a controller configured to generate the control signal such that interfering incident (Figure 1, 24 is a controller element for the drivers) and where first and second pressure maximum regions are created at first and second distances respectively from the acoustically reflective surface which first and second pressure maximum regions are of opposite phase to one another, and a pressure minimum point is created between the first and second pressure maximum regions (Column 1, lines 13-16).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Barmatz with Danley. It is well understood, in the field of acoustic levitation, that the emitted soundwaves create a pressure pocket with a pressure minimum surrounded by pressure maximums that allow an object to levitate between a transducer and a reflector. Adjusting the power to increase or decrease the distance of an object between a transducer and reflector is also obvious since the transducers can be controlled by the user and the object be levitated at a desired distance. The phase control allows for manipulation of the object, increasing accuracy in the system.
As to claims 2 and 13, Barmatz teaches “wherein the controller is configured to generate the control signal such that a perpendicular distance from the acoustically reflective surface varies over time within a levitation column (Figure 1, 24 teaches multiple drivers that control the emitted signal that levitates the object. This claim pertains to functional language, therefore the taught elements in the prior arts are capable of adjusting its signals to adjust the distances of the pressure minimum point).”
As to claims 3 and 14, Barmatz teaches “wherein the controller is configured to generate the control signal such that the perpendicular distance varies in increments smaller than ¼ of one wavelength of the acoustic energy emitted from the at least one acoustic transducer array (Figure 1, 24 teaches multiple drivers that control the emitted signal that levitates the object. This claim pertains to functional language, therefore the taught elements in the prior arts are capable of adjusting its signals to adjust the distances of the pressure minimum point).”
As to claim 4, Barmatz teaches “wherein the controller is configured to generate the control signal such that the perpendicular distance varies continuously over time (Figure 1, 24 teaches multiple drivers that control the emitted signal that levitates the object. This claim pertains to functional language, therefore the taught elements in the prior arts are capable to adjust its signals).”
As to claim 5, Danley teaches “a single acoustic transducer array with a set of transducer elements arranged on a flat surface, and the acoustically reflective surface is parallel to the flat surface (Figure 5, 62 and 68 have flat surfaces, although altering the shape of known elements only requires routine skill in the art).”
As to clam 8, Barmatz teaches “wherein the controller is configured to generate the control signal such that a position of the levitation column on the acoustically reflective surface varies over time (Figure 1, 24 teaches multiple drivers that control the emitted signal that levitates the object. This claim pertains to functional language, therefore the taught elements in the prior arts are capable of adjusting its signals to adjust the distances of the pressure minimum point).”
As to claims 11 and 16, Barmatz teaches “wherein the controller is configured to relocate an object in relation to the acoustically reflective surface, which object is placed in the pressure minimum point, by varying a position of the pressure minimum point (Figure 1, 24 teaches multiple drivers that control the emitted signal that levitates the object. This claim pertains to functional language, therefore the taught elements in the prior arts are capable of adjusting its signals to adjust the distances of the pressure minimum point).”
As to claim 12, Danley teaches “A computer-implemented method for levitating an object relative to an acoustically reflective surface (Although the term “computer” is not recited in the prior art, the prior art does teach an oscillator, amplifier and compression pump, all of which can be controlled by the user physically or via a computer method), the method comprising: generating a control signal which is configured to cause at least one acoustic transducer array to emit acoustic energy of periodically varying intensity (Figure 5, 62. It can be seen that the vibrator is connected to an oscillator and amplifier, presumably so that the energy from the vibrator can be adjusted as needed), each of the at least one acoustic transducer arrays comprising a set of transducer elements arranged on a surface extending in two or three dimensions (Column 4, lines 40-44), and the transducer elements being controllable in response to the control signal so as to emit the acoustic energy at a wavelength (Column 1, lines 63-66) and the control signal being generated such that interfering incident and reflected waves of the acoustic energy emitted towards the acoustically reflective surface form an effective standing wave pattern (Figure 5, 68).” Danley does not explicitly teach a controller but does teach an oscillator and amplifier which control the energy provided to the vibrator. Danley does not explicitly teach the first and second pressure regions and a pressure minimum, however, in the field of acoustic levitation, this is a given since this regional pressure difference is what creates the pressure pocket for the object to levitate within.
Barmatz teaches “and a phase delay determined by the control signal (Column 1, lines 20-26), where first and second pressure maximum regions are created at first and second distances respectively from the acoustically reflective surface, which first and second pressure maximum regions are of opposite phase to one another, and a pressure minimum point is created between the first and second pressure maximum regions (Column 1, lines 13-16).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Barmatz with Danley. It is well understood, in the field of acoustic levitation, that the emitted soundwaves create a pressure pocket with a pressure minimum surrounded by pressure maximums that allow an object to levitate between a transducer and a reflector. Adjusting the power to increase or decrease the distance of an object between a transducer and reflector is also obvious since the transducers can be controlled by the user and the object be levitated at a desired distance. The phase control allows for manipulation of the object, increasing accuracy in the system.
As to claim 15, Barmatz teaches “generating the control signal such that a position of the levitation column on the acoustically reflective surface varies over time (Figure 1, 24 teaches multiple drivers that control the emitted signal that levitates the object. This claim pertains to functional language, therefore the taught elements in the prior arts are capable of adjusting its signals to adjust the distances of the pressure minimum point in the levitation column).”
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danley US 4841495 in view of Barmatz US 4393706 in further view of Ochiai US 20170004819.
As to claim 6, Barmatz teaches “on a respective flat surface being parallel to one another, and each of the flat surfaces being orthogonal to the acoustically reflective surface (Figure 4 shows how all 6 walls can be reflective, therefore the walls are flat surfaces, in which some are parallel to each other),” Barmatz does not teach multiple transducer arrays, but does teach multiple transducers.
Ochiai teaches “comprising at least two acoustic transducer arrays arranged opposite to one another (Figure 2).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Ochiai with Barmatz and Danley. The structural elements such as a transducer, transducer array and reflective surface have been taught by the prior arts in the field of acoustic levitation. Altering the shapes and location of the transducers and reflective surfaces now only involve routine skill in the art. All of the design choices can be made by the user depending on the application of the system.
As to claim 7, Ochiai teaches “comprising four acoustic transducer arrays arranged pairwise opposite to one another (Figure 2).”
As to claim 9, Danley teaches “wherein the transducer elements in the at least one acoustic transducer array (Column 4, lines 40-44).”
Ochiai teaches “are arranged in a first number of rows and a second number of columns (Figure 2).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Ochiai with Barmatz and Danley. Having transducer arrays with X number of rows and Y number of columns is known in the art. Having an array allows for more accurate focusing, which can aid in optimizing a levitation system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danley US 4841495 in view of Barmatz US 4393706 in further view of Oran US 4218921.
As to claim 10, Danley teaches “wherein the transducer elements in the at least one acoustic transducer array (Column 4, lines 40-44).” Danley does not teach that the transducer element is arranged on a concave side.
Oran teaches “are arranged on a concave side of a spherical surface segment (Figure 1, 10).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Oran with Barmatz and Danley. Using a concave shape allows for an increase in levitation force, supporting heavier objects.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danley US 4841495 in view of Barmatz US 4393706 in further view of Wanis US 8166819.
As to claim 17, Danley teaches “generating a control signal which is configured to cause at least one acoustic transducer array to emit acoustic energy of periodically varying intensity (Figure 5, 62. It can be seen that the vibrator is connected to an oscillator and amplifier, presumably so that the energy from the vibrator can be adjusted as needed), each of the at least one acoustic transducer arrays comprising a set of transducer elements arranged on a surface extending in two or three dimensions (Column 4, lines 40-44), and the transducer elements being controllable in response to the control signal so as to emit the acoustic energy at a wavelength (Column 1, lines 63-66) and the control signal being generated such that interfering incident and reflected waves of the acoustic energy emitted towards the acoustically reflective surface form an effective standing wave pattern (Figure 5, 68).” Danley does not explicitly teach a controller but does teach an oscillator and amplifier which control the energy provided to the vibrator. Danley does not explicitly teach the first and second pressure regions and a pressure minimum, however, in the field of acoustic levitation, this is a given since this regional pressure difference is what creates the pressure pocket for the object to levitate within.
Barmatz teaches “and a phase delay determined by the control signal (Column 1, lines 20-26), where first and second pressure maximum regions are created at first and second distances respectively from the acoustically reflective surface, which first and second pressure maximum regions are of opposite phase to one another, and a pressure minimum point is created between the first and second pressure maximum regions (Column 1, lines 13-16).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Barmatz with Danley. It is well understood, in the field of acoustic levitation, that the emitted soundwaves create a pressure pocket with a pressure minimum surrounded by pressure maximums that allow an object to levitate between a transducer and a reflector. Adjusting the power to increase or decrease the distance of an object between a transducer and reflector is also obvious since the transducers can be controlled by the user and the object be levitated at a desired distance. The phase control allows for manipulation of the object, increasing accuracy in the system.
The prior arts do not explicitly teach a computer program product.
Wanis teaches “A computer program product comprising computer program code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, said computer program product configured for levitating an object relative to an acoustically reflective surface, said computer program code comprising computer instructions to cause at least one processing unit to perform the following operation (Column 13 line 66 to Column 14, line 10).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Wanis with Barmatz and Danley. It is known to utilize computer program products to execute certain actions. This allows for the computer program product to execute pre-programmed actions without the direct interaction of the user, allowing for an increase in efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863