DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/30/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the document “Office Action received for Finland Application no. 20246202” does not have an English translation on file. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B1 (Electromechanical Generator of the piston and stator type, seen in Fig 7) in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has cancelled claims 2-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 for belonging to non-elected Species.
Applicant has added new claims 21-34. However, claim 24 is withdrawn for belonging to non-elected Species B2. Claim 24 discloses “the electro-mechanical actuator includes a retaining bolt”. Examiner notes that the retaining bolt (317) is exclusive the electromechanical generator of the piezoelectric type seen in Fig 8, i.e. Species B2.
Claims 1, 12, 15, 18, 21-23 and 25-34 are examined hereafter.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an active element” in claim 1. This limitation satisfies the three-prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “element”; 2) it is modified by functional language “to drive the piston to produce resonant acoustic waves”; and 3) it is not modified by structural language in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification discloses the active element as a magnet and coil, a piezoelectric element, or a magnetostrictive element. Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent thereof.
“a reactive element” in claim 1. This limitation satisfies the three-prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “element”; 2) it is modified by functional language “to cancel out an imaginary portion of a complex impedance”; and 3) it is not modified by structural language in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification discloses the reactive element as a capacitor. Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent thereof.
“mechanical means” in claim 12. This limitation satisfies the three-prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “means”; 2) it is modified by functional language “to vary an outlet angle and diameter of the acoustic exit”; and 3) it is not modified by structural language in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification does not provide any structure to this this term. As such, it is unclear what the mechanical means encompasses, which renders the claim indefinite. See 112(b) rejection below.
“an element” in claim 18. This limitation satisfies the three-prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “element”; 2) it is modified by functional language “ to monitor a linear displacement of the electro-mechanical actuator”; and 3) it is not modified by structural language in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification does not provide any structure to this this term. As such, it is unclear what the element encompasses, which renders the claim indefinite. See 112(b) rejection below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 12, 15, 18, 21-23 and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses the terms “near acoustic resonance”, “near electrical resonance” and “near mechanical resonance”. The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such it is unclear constitutes a frequency that is in near acoustic/mechanical/electrical resonance.
Claims 12, 15, 18, 21-23 and 25-34 are indefinite for depending on claim 1.
Claim 12 limitation “mechanical means to vary an outlet angle and diameter of the acoustic exit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide any actual structure as to what constitutes this limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 18 limitation “element to monitor a linear displacement of the electro-mechanical actuator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide any actual structure as to what constitutes this limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend these claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 15, 21, 30, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (U.S. 2017/0259098) in view of Norris (U.S. 2015/0110333).
Regarding claim 1, Tran teaches a fire control and extinguishing apparatus (seen in Fig 1) for fire suppression (the device is used to disrupt phenomena, which as disclosed in Par 0046-47, this phenomena is a fire), comprising:
an acoustic wave system (defined by transducer 104, wave enhancer 108, cap 118, control unit 102, and power unit 122) configured to generate and direct resonant acoustic waves (the system includes a transducer 104 that generates an acoustic wave – see Pars 0051-52; the wave travels through wave enhancer 108 which causes resonation – see Par 0058), standing or traveling, at a source of fire to accomplish fire control and/or fire suppression (the apparatus sends a traveling waves towards a fire to at a frequency that causes the fire to be disrupted, i.e. suppressed – see Par 0047), wherein the acoustic wave system includes
an acoustic resonator tube (defined by wave enhancer 108, which causes resonation of the waves, as disclosed in Par 0058) having an acoustic exit (outlet 114) through which the resonant acoustic waves are directed at the source of the fire (the wave exits from exit 114 – Par 0055, and is directed towards a fire as disclosed at least in Par 0047),
an electro-mechanical actuator (defined by transducer 104) having an active element (Par 0082 discloses the transducer having an electromechanical motor; wherein it is known that these motors include a magnet and coil, which is commensurate with the interpretation of “active element” - see Claim Interpretation section above), wherein linear oscillations of the active element drive a piston (piston disclosed in Par 0052 and 0082; wherein pistons move linearly) to produce the resonant acoustic waves within the acoustic resonator tube (Par 0052 discloses the actuator 104 configured to oscillate according to a frequency signal; Par 0058 discloses resonant waves), and
a command module (control unit 102) that controls the electro-mechanical actuator (Par 0051 discloses the actuator 104 controlled by 102),
wherein the active element of the electro-mechanical actuator is designed to operate near mechanical, and acoustic resonance (as best understood, Par 0091 discloses creating a signal wave that resonates in the chamber of the tube; That is, the active element of the actuator 104, which is in charge of generating the signal, is designed to operate at mechanical resonance; Par 0044 discloses the apparatus configured to create acoustic waves and Par 0058 discloses the waves being resonant, this is considered acoustic resonance, as well),
wherein the active element is designed to operate near acoustic resonance by the command module sending an alternating current (AC) voltage at an operating frequency to the active element for driving the piston to produce the resonant acoustic waves within the acoustic resonator tube (as best understood, Par 0044 discloses the apparatus configured to create acoustic waves and Par 0058 discloses the waves being resonant, this is considered acoustic resonance; Par 0064 discloses the actuator 104, which includes the active element, operating with electrical current; Examiner notes that it is known that all speakers, i.e. sound producing electric devices, operate with AC current exclusively, as the alternating current pushes the speaker back and forth – on the other hand DC current would only move the speaker in one direction),
wherein the active element is designed to operate near mechanical resonance by configuring the active element to have a natural frequency that matches the operating frequency (as best understood, Par 0091 discloses creating a signal wave that resonates in the chamber of the tube; That is, the active element of the actuator 104, which is in charge of generating the signal, is designed to operate at mechanical resonance).
However, Tran does not teach the apparatus wherein the active element is designed to operate near electrical resonance by the command module using a reactive element to cancel out an imaginary portion of a complex impedance of the active element.
Norris teaches a sound system (see abstract), wherein an active element (defined by emitter, such as the one seen in Fig 3) of an actuator (transducer 6) is designed to operate near electrical resonance by a command module (defined by driver circuit 50, which operates at electrical resonance, as disclosed in Par 0055) using a reactive element (defined by inductor 54 and capacitor 58) to cancel out an imaginary portion of a complex impedance of the active element (by definition, complex impedance is the total frequency-dependent opposition to alternating current (AC) in a circuit, combining resistance and reactance; and Electrical resonance occurs when inductive and capacitive reactances perfectly cancel each other out, leaving the circuit purely resistive and altering current flow. As such, since Norris teaches a circuit with electrical resonance, the imaginary portion of complex impedance by definition is cancelled out. Furthermore, Par 0067 discloses the resonant circuit matching impedance from the emitter with the expected impedance of the amplifier, i.e. canceling out complex impedance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran to incorporate the teachings of Norris to provide the active element with a driver circuit that operates at electric resonance in order to improve the efficiency of the system which reduces the power consumed by the system and reduces the heat produced by the system (as disclosed in Par 0058 of Norris). In combination, the active element of the electro-mechanical actuator is designed to operate near electrical resonance (in view of Norris); as well as mechanical, and acoustic resonance (as taught by Tran), which reduce power consumption and system mass (since the prior art teaches the claimed structural limitations, they are deemed capable of performing these functions; furthermore, Norris explicitly teaches reduced power consumption – Par 0058).
Regarding claim 12, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the acoustic exit utilizes mechanical means to vary an outlet angle and diameter of the acoustic exit to optimize fire suppression (as best understood in view of 112(b) rejection, considering that Applicant’s specification does not provide any structural limitations as to what the “mechanical means” encompasses, the cap 118 of Tran can have varying configurations of for acoustic exit 114, wherein these configurations are designed to optimize wave flow, air flow, velocity, concentration – see Par 0078; as such, by varying concentration, the angle of the exit is changed, and by varying air flow and velocity, the diameter is changed; see Figs 4a-4e for different diameters and angles; in this case, the mechanical means is interpreted as the members 402, 416, 422, etc. seen in these figured).
Regarding claim 15, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a Resonant Volume designed to operate at resonance (resonant volume interpreted as the inner volume of chamber 110, see Par 0091, which discloses dimensions of the chamber 110 that cause it to resonate).
Regarding claim 21, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the active element of the electro- mechanical actuator is a magnet-and-coil type element (Par 0052 discloses the actuator 104 as comprising a magnetic motor; and Par 0076 discloses that these types of actuators comprise a magnet and coiled wire).
Regarding claim 30, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the reactive element used by the command module to cancel out the imaginary portion of the complex impedance of the magnet-and-coil type element includes a tuning capacitor or a synthetic tuning capacitor (Norris teaches a reactive element, defined by inductor 54 and filter capacitor 58, as part of the resonant circuit 50, the circuit 50 can be tuned to increase efficiency – Par 0067, as such the circuit is tunable and includes filter capacitor, i.e. it includes a tuning capacitor. Furthermore, Applicant discloses in their specification that “a tuning capacitor is used to allow the system to operate near electrical resonance”, wherein Norris performs the same function, as such the capacitor is considered a tuning capacitor).
Regarding claim 33, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the operating frequency is a frequency between 10 and 80 Hertz (Tran discloses the operating frequency between can be 20 Hertz, see Par 0043).
Regarding claim 34, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the acoustic wave system is mounted statically, deployed from a vehicle, or incorporated into a complete unmanned vehicle (Tran discloses the device being mounted to a vehicle, such as a truck, airplane, helicopter, drone, etc. – see Par 0061).
Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (U.S. 2017/0259098) in view of Norris (U.S. 2015/0110333), further in view of Harris et al (U.S. 2020/0296514).
Regarding claim 18, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of Claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus further comprising an element to monitor a linear displacement of the electro-mechanical actuator to avoid damage and optimize output of the acoustic waves by: a. Hall effect measurement, b. Optical measurement, and c. ultrasonic measurement.
As best understood in view of 112(b) rejection, considering that Applicant’s specification does not provide any structural limitations as to what the “element” encompasses, Harris teaches a speaker system that comprises an element (defined by feedback circuit 320 and flexible sensor 302) to monitor a linear displacement of an electro-mechanical actuator (diaphragm 310) to avoid damage and optimize output of the acoustic waves (the element detects the position of the actuator and makes corrections in view of errors or distortions, as stated at least in abstract; i.e. it avoids damage to the speaker and optimizes output) by: a. Hall effect measurement (Par 0048 discloses a feedback circuit 320 which includes a circuit 500 that acts as a hall effect measurement device by measuring voltage across the flexible sensor), b. Optical measurement (Par 0043 discloses the flexible sensor 302 as an optical flex sensor and a photosensitive detector), and c. ultrasonic measurement (Par 0046 discloses the feedback circuit providing positional information of the diaphragm 310 of the speaker; the diaphragm being in charge of generating sound waves, thus by measuring the diaphragm, Harris is using a sonic measurement means. Examiner remarks again that the “element” that monitors displacement by ultrasonic measurement is indefinite and its structure is unknown, as such as best understood, the feedback circuit of Harris reads on this limitation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran and Norris to incorporate the teachings of Harris to provide an element to monitor the displacement of the electromechanical-actuator in order to detect errors and distortions and apply corrections to the actuator (as disclosed in abstract and Par 0009 of Harris).
Regarding claim 25, Tran and Norris teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electro-mechanical actuator includes the piston (piston disclosed in Par 0052 and 0082 of Tran). However, they do not teach the actuator further including a flexure, a frame, and a stator.
Harris teaches a speaker system that comprises an actuator that includes a piston (pole 104), a flexure (diaphragm 116), a frame (110), and a stator (defined by permanent magnet 106).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran and Norris to incorporate the teachings of Harris to provide the actuator with a flexure, a frame, and a stator in order to be able to use a feedback circuit connected to the flexure (diaphragm) to detect errors and distortions of the acoustic wave generator of Tran, and to apply corrections to the drive signal (as disclosed in the abstract and Par 0008 of Harris). This would improve the acoustic quality of the apparatus of Tran.
Claims 22, 27, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (U.S. 2017/0259098) in view of Norris (U.S. 2015/0110333), further in view of Mantese et al (U.S. 9,812,117).
Regarding claim 22, Tran and Norris teach apparatus of claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus wherein the active element is a piezoelectric element.
Mantese teaches am acoustic wave generator wherein an active element (defined by active element of generator 104) is a piezoelectric element (as disclosed in col 4, lines 31-34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran and Norris to incorporate the teachings of Mantese to provide the active element as a piezoelectric element in order to produce amplified coherent sound (as disclosed in col 4, lines 34-37 of Mantese).
Regarding claim 27, Tran, Norris and Mantese teach the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the piezoelectric element is made of Lead Zirconate Titanate (PZT) (as disclosed in col 6, lines 24-35 of Mantese, the generator 104 has a layer of Lead Zirconate Titanate).
Regarding claim 28, Tran, Norris and Mantese teach the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the piezoelectric element is made of single crystal elements in the form of a single element or a stack and wired together (as disclosed in col 4, lines 34-40 of Mantese, the piezoelectric element is made up of crystal sandwiches formed with interleaving electrodes, i.e. crystals stacked and wired together).
Regarding claim 31, Tran, Norris and Mantese teach the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the reactive element used by the command module to cancel out the imaginary portion of the complex impedance of the piezoelectric element includes a capacitive circuit (Norris teaches a reactive element, defined by inductor 54 and capacitor 58, as part of the resonant circuit 50, the circuit 50 including capacitor 58, i.e. a capacitive circuit).
Claims 23, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (U.S. 2017/0259098) in view of Norris (U.S. 2015/0110333), further in view of Lorraine (U.S. 5,458,120).
Regarding claim 23, Tran and Norris teach apparatus of claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus wherein the active element of the electro-mechanical actuator is a magnetostrictive element.
Lorraine teaches an apparatus for focusing a beam of ultrasound comprising an actuator (defined by transducer element 10) having an active element that in the form of a magnetostrictive element (defined by magnetostrictive lens 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran and Norris to incorporate the teachings of Lorraine to provide the active element as a magnetostrictive element due to their ability to change their modulus of elasticity when excited by a signal. Since the coefficient of elasticity of the material can be shown to be directly related to the speed of propagation of sound passing therethrough, this allows for dynamically varying the speed of propagation of the wave of ultrasound energy passing therethrough by varying the level of the control signal applied to the material (as disclosed in col 3, line 60 to col 4, line 5 of Lorrainer). This allows for greater control of the active element.
Regarding claim 29, Tran, Norris and Lorrainer teach the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the magnetostrictive element is made of Nitinol or Terfenol-D (as disclosed in col 3, line 56 of Lorraine, the magnetostrictive element is Terfenol-D).
Regarding claim 32, Tran, Norris and Lorrainer teach the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the reactive element used by the command module to cancel out the imaginary portion of the complex impedance of the magnetostrictive element includes an inductive circuit (Norris teaches a reactive element, defined by inductor 54 and capacitor 58, as part of the resonant circuit 50, the circuit 50 including capacitor 58, i.e. an inductive circuit).
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (U.S. 2017/0259098) in view of Norris (U.S. 2015/0110333), further in view of Scheek et al (U.S. 2020/0296502).
Regarding claim 26, Tran and Norris teach apparatus of claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus wherein the magnet-and-coil type element includes a magnetic element that is made of Neodymium or Samarium Cobalt.
Scheek teaches a loudspeaker device that includes magnet (32) and coil (34) type element that includes a magnetic element that is made of Neodymium (as disclosed in Par 0036).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran and Norris to incorporate the teachings of Scheek to provide a magnetic element that is made of Neodymium due to its high magnetic flux density (as disclosed in Par 0036 of Scheek).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights