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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Claims 8-12 are new.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 6 are amended.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barmatz (US 4,773,266 A) in view of Venturelli (US 2003/0154790 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barmatz teaches An acoustic levitation apparatus for adaptively adjusting a resonance distance, wherein the apparatus comprises an acoustic receiver[Fig 11 has sensor #146; Fig 10 has vibrator and reflector #124 and #122; Col 7; Lines 50-65], an acoustic transmitter[Fig 10 has vibrator and reflector #124 and #122; Col 7; Lines 50-65], a motor, a slide, and a signal feedback control module[Fig 12 has controller and motor #162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal and detector # 164 for sensing acoustic energy];
the acoustic receiver having a surface for receiving an acoustic pressure of a radiated acoustic wave of the acoustic transmitter, wherein the surface of the transducer is also used as a reflecting surface for forming a standing wave field; [Fig 11 has sensor #146 opposite transducer #140o0n reflecting surface and Fig 12 shows that transducer #164 senses acoustic pressure; Fig 10 shows vibrator and reflector for sanding wave field ; See also Col 6, Lines 65-70 and Col 8, Lines 15-25 for measuring pressure ]
the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter are disposed on the slide such that there is a physical spacing between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter along a straight line,[Fig 12 has feedback signal and detector #164 for sensing acoustic energy; Fig 11 has sensor #146; Fig 10 has vibrator and reflector # 124], the motor is drive-connected to the slide[Fig 12 has motor # 162], the standing wave field is formed between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter[Col 1; Lines 10-20 has standing wave field], the acoustic receiver is connected to the signal feedback control module[Fig 11 has sensor #146 that maintains frequency near resonance by sensing acoustic pressure meaning it has feedback control; Col 8 Lines 10-40] and the signal feedback control module is communicatively connected to the motor[Title and Col 7, Lines 50-60 show this invention is for stabilizing the object; Fig 12 has controller and motor# 162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal and detector 164 for sensing acoustic energy;],
when a frequency of the acoustic transmitter drifts due to a temperature change, or a speed of sound changes in a medium between the transducer and the acoustic transmitter due to a temperature change[This appears to be in intended use since whether or not the change is caused by temperature it is ultimately detected as amplitude which is what the claim requires and prior art provides, moreover the claim does appears to be claiming an environmental effect than a device function], the signal feedback control module detects whether an amplitude of a voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver based on the received acoustic pressure receiver satisfies a maximum value to determine whether the physical spacing between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter along the straight line satisfies a standing wave condition [Abstract concerns levitating using standing wave, Col 4, Lines 5-55 also have maximum acoustic pressure on the object; Moreover this appears to merely recite a threshold or condition], and automatically controls the motor to drive the slide to move to adjust the physical spacing between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter along the straight line such that the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver reaches the maximum value which is a value at which stable acoustic levitation is reached during dynamic adjustment of the resonance distance of acoustic levitation; [Title and Col 7, Lines 50-60 show this invention is for stabilizing the object, Fig 12 has controller and motor# 162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal and detector #164 for sensing acoustic energy; Col 8, Lines 40-65 also has stabilization and feedback, Moreover this appears to merely recite a threshold or condition];
the motor, the slide, and the signal feedback control module are configured to adjust the physical spacing between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter along the straight line in one of two manners as follows:[Fig 12 has controller and motor# 162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal and detector 164 for sensing acoustic energy]
a manner 1: after the signal feedback control module receives the voltage signal, increasing the physical spacing, and after the physical spacing is increased, if the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver continues to increase, continuing to increase the physical spacing until the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall #156 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor# 1 64 to maintain desired resonance] and after the physical spacing is increased, if the acoustic pressure signal measured by the acoustic receiver decreases, decreasing the physical spacing until the amplitude of the acoustic pressure signal measured by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall #156 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor #164 to maintain desired resonance];
and a manner 2: after the signal feedback control module receives the voltage signal, decreasing the physical spacing, and after the physical spacing is decreased, if the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver continues to increase, continuing to decrease the physical spacing until the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully: [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall 56 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor #164 to maintain desired resonance]; and after the physical spacing is decreased, if the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver decreases, increasing the physical spacing until the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall #156 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor # 164 to maintain desired resonance].
and the acoustic transmitter is connected to an ultrasonic generator[Fig 10 has vibrator #124 meaning it produces ultrasonic waves].
Even if Barmatz does not explicitly have the acoustic receiver being a transducer which is used as a reflecting surface and is also used for measuring an acoustic pressure, ….. an adaptive algorithm
Venturelli teaches a transducer having surface for receiving an acoustic pressure[0051 and #44 in Fig 3 has sensor in the reflector for measuring acoustic pressure], ….. the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter are disposed on the slide such that there is a physical spacing between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter along a straight line[0051 and Fig 3], ….. an adaptive algorithm [0051 has feedback and adjusting pressure meaning an automated system; 0045 has processor meaning algorithm]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the reflecting surface of Barmatz have the sensor and processor of Venturelli in the reflector to also function as a transducer to measure acoustic pressure, and to have a processor that contains the instructions for controlling the system to better automate the system.
Moreover it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Moreover it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified adjusting the distance and pressure between the transmitter and receiver to optimize resonance distance, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges or values and thresholds until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Barmatz teaches 1) forming a standing wave field by using an acoustic receiver as a reflector and making a spacing between the reflector and an acoustic transmitter satisfy a resonance condition[Col 1; Lines 10-20 has standing wave field. Fig 10 has vibrator and reflector #124 and #122; Col 7; Lines 50-65] wherein the acoustic receiver is a transducer having a surface for receiving an acoustic pressure of a radiated acoustic wave of the acoustic transmitter, wherein the surface of the transducer is also used as a reflecting surface for forming the standing wave field; [Fig 11 has sensor # 146 opposite transducer #140 on reflecting surface and Fig 12 shows that transducer #164 senses acoustic pressure]
2) receiving, by the acoustic receiver, the acoustic pressure of the radiated acoustic wave of the acoustic transmitter, and converting the acoustic pressure into a voltage signal to be inputted into a signal feedback control module[Fig 11 has sensor #146 that maintains frequency near resonance by sensing acoustic pressure meaning it has feedback control; Col 8 Lines 10-40].
3) controlling, by the signal feedback control module, a motor to fine-tune the spacing between the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver, detecting, by the signal feedback control module, whether the voltage signal outputted by the acoustic receiver satisfies a maximum value, and determining stability of levitation according to a change in the voltage signal[Fig 12 has controller and motor # 162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal and detector #164 for sensing acoustic energy; Col 8, Lines 40-65; Title and Col 7, Lines 50-60 show this invention is for stabilizing the object, Moreover this appears to merely recite a threshold or condition];
4) and when a levitated object becomes unstable under the influence of frequency drifting of the acoustic transmitter due to a temperature change, or of a change in a speed of sound in a medium between the transducer and the acoustic transmitter due to a temperature change,[This appears to be in intended use since whether or not the change is caused by temperature it is ultimately detected as amplitude which is what the claim requires and prior art provides, moreover the claim does appears to be claiming an environmental effect than a device function] automatically controlling the motor by using the signal feedback control module to drive the acoustic transmitter or the acoustic receiver to move, and adjusting a physical spacing between the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver along a straight line, so that the resonance condition is satisfied when an amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver reaches the maximum value which is a value at which stable acoustic levitation is reached during dynamic adjustment of the resonance distance of acoustic levitation, making the levitated object satisfy stable levitation in a levitation apparatus [Title and Col 7, Lines 50-60 show this invention is for stabilizing the object; Fig 12 has controller and motor 162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal and detector # 164 for sensing acoustic energy; Col 8, Lines 40-65; Moreover this appears to merely recite a threshold or condition].
and the physical spacing between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter along the straight line is adjusted in step 4) in one of two manners as follows:[Fig 12 has controller and motor# 162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal and detector 164 for sensing acoustic energy]
a manner 1: after the signal feedback control module receives the voltage signal, increasing the physical spacing, and after the physical spacing is increased, if the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver continues to increase, continuing to increase the physical spacing until the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall #156 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor# 1 64 to maintain desired resonance] and after the physical spacing is increased, if the acoustic pressure signal measured by the acoustic receiver decreases, decreasing the physical spacing until the amplitude of the acoustic pressure signal measured by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall #156 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor #164 to maintain desired resonance];
and a manner 2: after the signal feedback control module receives the voltage signal, decreasing the physical spacing, and after the physical spacing is decreased, if the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver continues to increase, continuing to decrease the physical spacing until the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully: [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall 56 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor #164 to maintain desired resonance]; and after the physical spacing is decreased, if the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver decreases, increasing the physical spacing until the amplitude of the voltage signal output by the acoustic receiver satisfies the maximum value, that is, the physical spacing is adjusted successfully [Fig 12; Col 8 Lines 40-65 has movable wall #156 being adjusted to change chamber length based on feedback from sensor # 164 to maintain desired resonance].
Even if Barmatz does not explicitly have the acoustic receiver being a transducer which is used as a reflecting surface and is also used for measuring an acoustic pressure, ….. an adaptive algorithm
Venturelli teaches a transducer having surface for receiving an acoustic pressure[0051 and #44 in Fig 3 has sensor in the reflector for measuring acoustic pressure], ….. the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter are disposed on the slide such that there is a physical spacing between the acoustic receiver and the acoustic transmitter along a straight line[0051 and Fig 3], ….. an adaptive algorithm [0051 has feedback and adjusting pressure meaning an automated system; 0045 has processor meaning algorithm]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the reflecting surface of Barmatz have the sensor and processor of Venturelli in the reflector to also function as a transducer to measure acoustic pressure, and to have a processor that contains the instructions for controlling the system to better automate the system.
Moreover it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Moreover it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified adjusting the distance and pressure between the transmitter and receiver to optimize resonance distance, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges or values and thresholds until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 2, Barmatz teaches wherein the signal feedback control module is a microcontroller. [Fig 12 has controller and motor # 162 to adjust distance between reflecting walls based on feedback signal]
Regarding claim 3, Barmatz teaches wherein a matcher is disposed at the ultrasonic generator, and a matching parameter is adjusted to correspond to ultrasonic transducers with different frequencies. [Col 8, Lines 20-35 has various frequencies involved with adjusting levitation meaning the modulation of frequencies reads on the matching parameter].
Regarding claim 4, Barmatz teaches wherein a radiating surface of the acoustic transmitter is a plane surface or a concave surface. [Fig 1, 11 and 12 have a plane surface and fig 10 shows a concave surface for the transmitter # 120].
Regarding claim 5, Barmatz teaches wherein the acoustic receiver has a plane surface or a concave surface. [Fig 1, 10, 11 and 12 has a plane surface for the receiver].
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barmatz (US 4,773,266 A) in view of Venturelli (US 2003/0154790 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (18/168609).
Regarding claim 8, Barmatz does not explicitly teach wherein the adaptive algorithm is a zero-forcing algorithm.
Lin teaches wherein the adaptive algorithm is a zero-forcing algorithm.[Admission on page 8 of applicants specification, as such this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight]
Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the levitation apparatus in Barmatz with the zero-forcing algorithm in Lin control the distance. Moreover the use of zero forcing algorithms are common and well known components in the art based admission in applicant's specification. This is further evidenced by art such as Col 13, Lines 15-25 of Borth (US 4852090 A)
Regarding claim 9, Barmatz does not explicitly teach wherein the adaptive algorithm is a steepest descent algorithm.
Lin teaches wherein the adaptive algorithm is a steepest descent algorithm.[Admission on page 8 of applicants specification, as such this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight]
Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the levitation apparatus in Barmatz with the steepest descent algorithm in Lin control the distancet. Moreover the use of steepest descent algorithms are common and well known components in the art based admission in applicant's specification. This is further evidenced by art such as Col 85, Lines 35-40 of Nielsen (US 11290084 B2)
Regarding claim 10, Barmatz does not explicitly teach wherein the adaptive algorithm is an LMS algorithm.
Lin teaches wherein the adaptive algorithm is an LMS algorithm.[Admission on page 8 of applicants specification, as such this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight]
Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the levitation apparatus in Barmatz with an LMS algorithm in Lin control the distance. Moreover the use of an LMS algorithms are common and well known components in the art based admission in applicant's specification. This is further evidenced by art such as Col 33, Lines 15-25 of Shelley (US 6549858 B1)
Regarding claim 11, Barmatz does not explicitly teach wherein the adaptive algorithm is a RLS algorithm.
Lin teaches wherein the adaptive algorithm is an RLS algorithm.[Admission on page 8 of applicants specification, as such this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight]
Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the levitation apparatus in Barmatz with an RLS algorithm in Lin control the distance. Moreover the use of an RLS algorithms are common and well known components in the art based admission in applicant's specification. This is further evidenced by art such as Col 33, Lines 15-25 of Shelley (US 6549858 B1)
Regarding claim 12, Barmatz does not explicitly teach wherein the adaptive algorithm is a blind equalization algorithm.
Lin teaches wherein the adaptive algorithm is a blind equalization algorithm.[Admission on page 8 of applicants specification, as such this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight]
Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the levitation apparatus in Barmatz with the blind equalization algorithm in Lin control the distance. Moreover the use of blind equalization algorithms are common and well known components in the art based admission in applicant's specification. This is further evidenced by art such as Col 14, Lines 25-30 of Nobakht (US 5539774 A)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly and in isolation than as a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding point 1 in the remarks it is pointed out that the straight line structure applicant is reading the prior art in isolation of each drawing and not considering that moving the wall would change the distance which is all the claim requires. Moreover any distance between two points (receiver and transmitter is a straight line). This argument also ignores Venturelli which has the transmitter and receiver along a straight line as well as reading the embodiments of Barmatz in isolation from one another.
Regarding point 2a the remarks it is pointed out that it appears to be in intended use since whether or not the change is caused by temperature or speed or sound it is ultimately detected as amplitude which is what the claim requires and prior art provides, moreover the claim does appears to be claiming an environmental effect than a device function. The claim does not distinguish not show how such a feat is performed to detect a change caused by the claimed environmental factors and similar changes not caused by them. The only thing the device does is detect amplitude by the receiver and such a thing will occur regardless of the environmental cause and that is what the prior art shows. In response to applicant's argument regarding use of temperature and frequency response in Barmatz it is pointed out that , the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding point 2b the remarks it is pointed out that the prior art has the prior art has the use of thresholds and the fact that a value is a limit or “maximum” is a threshold by another name. Moreover it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified adjusting the distance and pressure between the transmitter and receiver to optimize resonance distance, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges or values and thresholds until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding point 3 and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is pointed out that both the prior art references show and are used for levitation of an object meaning applicant’s focus on the minutiae of their function is misplaced and is reading the prior art overly narrowly.
Regarding point 4 of the remarks it is pointed out that above that determining a “maximum” value is the monitoring of a threshold. The amendment is overly detailed and wordy but effectively claims increasing of decreasing the distance till stability is achieved. Read another way applicant’s amendment is analogous to as accelerating or decelerating a vehicle to maintain a certain speed or leaning one way or the other to maintain balance on a tight rope.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights