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 amendments filed 9/15/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been considered.
The applicant argues that Ohta does not teach newly cited feature one (spacing of the transducers). The examiner agrees, however, the previous rejection cited Puskas to teach optimizing their spacing (previously rejected claim 3 and 5).
As to the number of transducers (feature 2) that is addressed below.
As to the sound pressure level, it was previously presented that the sound pressure level is a way of measuring an amount/intensity of the ultrasound emitted. Thus, optimizing the amount of ultrasound to achieve the desired ultrasonic treatment optimizes the sound pressure level. The Ohta reference throughout is focused on monitoring the output of the transducers to ensure desired treatment and outcome. Additionally, Puskas teaches that the energy in a high intensity ultrasonic field is the most important characteristic for ultrasonic cleaning and changes based on the pressure and frequency of the ultrasound (column 15, lines 29-38).
The record does not show evidence to establish criticality of the claimed spacing, number of emitters, or range of sound pressure level recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US 2023/0085375) in view of Puskas (US 6,181,052).
With regards to claim 1, Ohta teaches a device capable of ultrasonic extraction, comprising: a solution tank (2); and a plurality of ultrasonic transducers (5 and 7a-f) on an outer surface (bottom) of the solution tank; wherein the plurality of ultrasonic transducers comprises a central ultrasonic transducer (4) and a plurality of peripheral ultrasonic transducers (7a-f) arranged to surround the central transducer (abstract; fig 1, 4a; para [0085]).
Ohta does not specify the claimed spacing between transducers. Puskas teaches arranging a plurality of ultrasonic transducers on a tank filed with solution (abstract; fig 1, 18, 20, 21). Puskas teaches spacing the transducers at 2 times their diameter measured from the center of each adjacent transducer in order to reduce cavitation and reduce damaging the tank (fig 18; column 11, lines 40-54). This distance is also taught to be scaled to user needs and requirements.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a central spacing between any adjacent transducers of 2 times the diameter of the transducers in order to reduce cavitation and damage to the tank. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the spacing/positioning based on user needs and requirements as taught by Puskas.
Ohta does not specify the sound pressure level equivalent in pure water that the ultrasonic transducers produce. This, however, is a measurement of the amount/intensity of ultrasound generated. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the sound pressure level equivalent of the transducers in order to achieve the desired amount/intensity of the ultrasonic treatment/vibration of the target.
Additionally, Puskas teaches that the energy in a high intensity ultrasonic field is the most important characteristic for ultrasonic cleaning and changes based on the pressure and frequency of the ultrasound (column 15, lines 29-38). It would therefore be obvious to optimize the pressure and frequency of the ultrasound in order to achieve the desired cleaning effect.
As to the number of transducers, Puskas teaches that any number of transducers can be used (column 9, lines 48-49). Ohta also does not teach a criticality to only certain number of transducers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of transducers as suggested by Puskas in order to achieve the desired cleaning action.
The combination results in wherein a central distance between the central ultrasonic transducer and any one of the plurality of peripheral ultrasonic transducers is smaller than a central distance between any adjacent two of the peripheral ultrasonic transducers wherein the plurality of ultrasonic transducers comprise five ultrasonic transducers and together provide the solution tank with an ultrasound having a sound pressure level equivalent to 30 mV to 140 mV in pure water.
With regards to claim 2, the outer surface is a bottom surface of the solution tank, and the central transducer is located at a center of the bottom surface (fig 4a; para [0085]).
With regards to claim 4, a central distance (radius of the circle) between the central ultrasonic transducer and any one of the plurality of peripheral transducers is equal (arranged in a circle about the central transducer 5; para [0085]).
With regards to claims 3 and 5, Ohta does not specify the claimed central distance between any adjacent ultrasonic transducers as 1.6 to 2.3 times the diameter of the transducers. Puskas teaches arranging a plurality of ultrasonic transducers on a tank filed with solution (abstract; fig 1, 18, 20, 21). Puskas teaches spacing the transducers at 2 times their diameter measured from the center of each adjacent transducer in order to reduce cavitation and reduce damaging the tank (fig 18; column 11, lines 40-54). This distance is also taught to be scaled to user needs and requirements.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a central spacing between any adjacent transducers of 2 times the diameter of the transducers in order to reduce cavitation and damage to the tank. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the spacing based on user needs and requirements as taught by Puskas.
With regards to claim 8, the solution tank is square and polygonal (square) (fig 1, 4a; para [0085]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US 2023/0085375) and Puskas (US 6,181,052) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Ferrell (US 5,909,741).
With regards to claim 6, Ohta does not specify whether the plurality of transducers are operated at the same frequency or not. Ferrell teaches a similar multiple transducer bath apparatus (abstract and fig 1). Ferrell teaches that the transducers can be operated anywhere between 20-750kHz and can be operated at different frequencies for special treatment but otherwise the same frequency is preferred (column 4, lines 48-62). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the transducers operate between 20-750kHz and operate at the same frequency as each other as this is taught as preferred for multiple transducer baths and further motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired ultrasonic energy to the ultrasonic bath.
With regards to claim 7, Ohta does not specify that the frequency of the transducers. Ferrell teaches a similar multiple transducer bath apparatus (abstract and fig 1). Ferrell teaches that the transducers can be operated anywhere between 20-750kHz and can be operated at different frequencies for special treatment but otherwise the same frequency is preferred (column 4, lines 48-62). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the transducers operate between 20-750kHz motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired ultrasonic energy to the ultrasonic bath.
Ferrell teaches that different frequencies may be useful for different applications based on the geometry of the object being treated (column 4, lines 48-62). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the frequencies be selectable throughout the taught range in order to adjust the system for different ultrasonic treatments for different target objects as desired.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799