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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badcott et al. (US 2019/0365409; “Badcott”).
Regarding claim 1, Badcott teaches an ultrasonic transducer (20; figures 2-3) for surgical applications (para.[0039]), the ultrasonic transducer comprising:
a back mass (24);
a front mass (14);
an ultrasonic actuator arrangement (22) held between the back mass (24) and the front mass (14);
an ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3) forward of the front mass (24),
wherein the back mass (24), ultrasonic actuator arrangement (22), front mass (14) and ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3) are arranged along a longitudinal axis (see configuration of figure 2) of the transducer (20),
wherein vibrations generated by the ultrasonic actuator arrangement (22) are conducted into the front mass (14) and into the ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3) along a vibrational energy transfer path (through 29, 6, 3) and are amplitude amplified (function of ultrasonic horn) by the ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3),
and wherein one or more of the back mass, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement includes a plurality of openings (11) opening towards the longitudinal axis (within 29) and intersecting the vibrational energy transfer path (through 29, 6, 3) and configured to provide an increased mechanical compliance (Similar to the instant application, this property is due to openings in the ultrasonic horn.) in a direction along the vibrational energy transfer path (See openings in figures 2 and 3.).
As for claim 2, Badcott teaches wherein the transducer is a Langevin transducer (para. [0039]).
As for claim 3, Badcott teaches wherein the vibrational energy transfer path in the back mass, front mass and/or ultrasonic horn includes an annular portion, the plurality of openings intersecting the vibrational energy transfer path being provided through a wall of the annular portion (See figure 3 and para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Badcott teaches wherein each opening has a substantially uniform cross section along its depth (See dimension d in figure 3a.).
Regarding claim 5, Badcott teaches wherein the openings each have the same size (See dimensions in figure 3a.).
As for claim 6, Badcott teaches wherein the openings are arranged based on a repeating pattern (See repeating rows 7 in figure 3a.).
Regarding claim 7, Badcott teaches wherein there are three or more openings (Figures 2-3 depict more than three openings.).
Regarding claim 11, Badcott teaches wherein the openings are provided in an achiral array (See configuration of figures 2-3).
As for claim 12, Badcott teaches wherein the plurality of openings is not provided in the ultrasonic horn arrangement (For this claim, the ultrasonic horn arrangement is interpreted as elements 3 and 6.).
Regarding claim 13, Badcott teaches wherein the openings are provided in a reflective symmetrical array (See rows 7 in figures 2-3.).
As for claim 14, Badcott teaches wherein the openings are arranged based on a repeating pattern (See repeating rows 7 in figures 2-3.).
As for claim 17, Badcott teaches wherein, for a planar cross section taken perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a position along the longitudinal axis coinciding with a maximum total number of openings intersecting the plane, the openings occupy at least 10% of the circumference of the front mass or back mass (See configuration of figure 2).
As for claim 18, Badcott teaches wherein the front mass comprises a proximal portion in contact with the ultrasonic actuator arrangement and a distal portion connected to the ultrasonic horn arrangement and an intermediate portion disposed between the proximal portion and the distal portion, and wherein the openings are provided in the intermediate portion (For this claim, the front mass is interpreted as elements 14 and 29.).
Regarding claim 19, Badcott teaches a surgical tool comprising an ultrasonic transducer (20; figures 2-3) comprising:
a back mass (24);
a front mass (14);
an ultrasonic actuator arrangement (22) held between the back mass (24) and the front mass (14);
an ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3) forward of the front mass (24),
wherein the back mass (24), ultrasonic actuator arrangement (22), front mass (14) and ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3) are arranged along a longitudinal axis (see configuration of figure 2) of the transducer (20),
wherein vibrations generated by the ultrasonic actuator arrangement (22) are conducted into the front mass (14) and into the ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3) along a vibrational energy transfer path (through 29, 6, 3) and are amplitude amplified (function of ultrasonic horn) by the ultrasonic horn arrangement (29, 6, 3),
and wherein one or more of the back mass, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement includes a plurality of openings (11) opening towards the longitudinal axis (within 29) and intersecting the vibrational energy transfer path (through 29, 6, 3) and configured to provide an increased mechanical compliance (Similar to the instant application, this property is due to openings in the ultrasonic horn.) in a direction along the vibrational energy transfer path (See openings in figures 2 and 3.).
Regarding claim 20, the method as recited in the claim is inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iula et al. (“Design and Experimental Characterization of an Composite Longitudinal-Flexural Mode Ultrasonic Transducer”; “Iula”.
Regarding claim 1, Iula teaches an ultrasonic transducer (figure 1) for surgical applications, the ultrasonic transducer comprising:
a back mass (back “cylinder shaped steel mass”);
a front mass (front “cylinder shaped steel mass”);
an ultrasonic actuator arrangement (piezoceramic disks) held between the back mass and the front mass;
an ultrasonic horn arrangement (“stepped horn”) forward of the front mass,
wherein the back mass, ultrasonic actuator arrangement, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the transducer (see axis in figure 1),
wherein vibrations generated by the ultrasonic actuator arrangement are conducted into the front mass and into the ultrasonic horn arrangement along a vibrational energy transfer path and are amplitude amplified by the ultrasonic horn arrangement, (See description of figure 1b under the heading Working Principle)
and wherein one or more of the back mass, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement includes a plurality of openings opening towards the longitudinal axis and intersecting the vibrational energy transfer path and configured to provide an increased mechanical compliance in a direction along the vibrational energy transfer path (See the openings in figure 1a).
Regarding claim 2, Iula teaches wherein the transducer is a Langevin transducer (See description of figure 1 under the heading Working Principle).
As for claim 3, Iula teaches wherein the vibrational energy transfer path in the back mass, front mass and/or ultrasonic horn includes an annular portion, the plurality of openings intersecting the vibrational energy transfer path being provided through a wall of the annular portion (See configuration of figure 1).
As for claim 4, Iula teaches wherein each opening has a substantially uniform cross section along its depth (See configuration of figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Iula teaches wherein the openings each have the same size (See shapes in figure 1a).
Regarding claim 6, Iula teaches wherein the openings are arranged based on a repeating pattern (See pattern in figure 1a).
Regarding claim 7, Iula teaches wherein there are three or more openings (See four openings in figure 1a).
As for claim 8, Iula teaches wherein the length of the transducer, measured from the proximal end of the back mass to the distal end of the horn, along the vibrational energy transfer path, is not more than 40 mm (See the first paragraph under the heading Numerical Results.).
As for claim 9, Iula teaches wherein the maximum diameter of the transducer, measured in a direction perpendicular to the length, is not more than 15 mm (See the first paragraph under the heading Numerical Results.).
Regarding claim 10, Iula teaches wherein in operation, the plurality of openings provide substantially no longitudinal to torsional mode conversion (Iula teaches no torsional mode conversion).
As for claim 11, Iula teaches wherein the openings are provided in an achiral array (See configuration of figure 1a).
Regarding claim 12, Iula teaches wherein the plurality of openings is not provided in the ultrasonic horn arrangement (See configuration of figure 1a).
Regarding claim 13, Iula teaches wherein the openings are provided in a reflective symmetrical array (See reflective configuration in figure 1a).
As for claim 14, Iula teaches wherein the openings are arranged based on a repeating pattern (See repeating pattern in figure 1a).
Regarding claim 17, Iula teaches wherein, for a planar cross section taken perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a position along the longitudinal axis coinciding with a maximum total number of openings intersecting the plane, the openings occupy at least 10% of the circumference of the front mass or back mass (See openings in figure 1a).
As for claim 18, Iula teaches wherein the front mass comprises a proximal portion in contact with the ultrasonic actuator arrangement and a distal portion connected to the ultrasonic horn arrangement and an intermediate portion disposed between the proximal portion and the distal portion, and wherein the openings are provided in the intermediate portion (See openings in front cylinder of figure 1a).
Regarding claim 19, Iula teaches a surgical tool comprising an ultrasonic transducer (figure 1) comprising:
a back mass (back “cylinder shaped steel mass”);
a front mass (front “cylinder shaped steel mass”);
an ultrasonic actuator arrangement (piezoceramic disks) held between the back mass and the front mass;
an ultrasonic horn arrangement (“stepped horn”) forward of the front mass,
wherein the back mass, ultrasonic actuator arrangement, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the transducer (see axis in figure 1),
wherein vibrations generated by the ultrasonic actuator arrangement are conducted into the front mass and into the ultrasonic horn arrangement along a vibrational energy transfer path and are amplitude amplified by the ultrasonic horn arrangement, (See description of figure 1b under the heading Working Principle)
and wherein one or more of the back mass, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement includes a plurality of openings opening towards the longitudinal axis and intersecting the vibrational energy transfer path and configured to provide an increased mechanical compliance in a direction along the vibrational energy transfer path (See the openings in figure 1a).
Regarding claim 20, the method as recited in the claim is inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
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 8, 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badcott.
Regarding claims 8-9, Badcott teaches the ultrasonic transducer according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the length of the transducer, measured from the proximal end of the back mass to the distal end of the horn, along the vibrational energy transfer path, is not more than 40 mm and wherein the maximum diameter of the transducer, measured in a direction perpendicular to the length, is not more than 15 mm.
However, according to the Federal Circuit, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device performing the same operation where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). MPEP § 2144.04 (IV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dimensions of the ultrasonic transducer of Badcott because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, Badcott teaches the ultrasonic transducer according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein there are 20 or more openings.
However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the number of openings in an ultrasonic transducer is merely a design choice made to meet particular design specifications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number of openings in the ultrasonic transducer of Badcott because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, Badcott teaches the method according to claim 20, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the ultrasonic transducer is operated at a power in the range 1-1000 W.
However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the operating power of an ultrasonic transducer is merely a design choice made to meet particular design specifications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the operating power for the ultrasonic transducer of Badcott because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iula.
Regarding claim 16, Iula teaches the ultrasonic transducer according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein there are 20 or more openings.
However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the number of openings in an ultrasonic transducer is merely a design choice made to meet particular design specifications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number of openings in the ultrasonic transducer of Iula because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, Iula teaches the method according to claim 20, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the ultrasonic transducer is operated at a power in the range 1-1000 W.
However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the operating power of an ultrasonic transducer is merely a design choice made to meet particular design specifications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the operating power for the ultrasonic transducer of Iula because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The best prior art references of record, Badcott and Iula, fail to teach:
“wherein the openings are arranged substantially randomly, or offset randomly from a notional regular repeating pattern.”, as set forth in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clayton (US 10,137,033) teaches an ultrasonic transducer for surgical applications (figure 2), comprising: a back mass (rear mass); a front mass (torsional spring); an ultrasonic actuator arrangement (piezo ring stack) held between the back mass and the front mass; an ultrasonic horn arrangement (horn) forward of the front mass, wherein the back mass, ultrasonic actuator arrangement, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the transducer (see axis in figure 2), wherein vibrations generated by the ultrasonic actuator arrangement are conducted into the front mass and into the ultrasonic horn arrangement along a vibrational energy transfer path and are amplitude amplified by the ultrasonic horn arrangement (see configuration of horn in figure 2), and wherein one or more of the back mass, front mass and ultrasonic horn arrangement includes a plurality of openings opening towards the longitudinal axis and intersecting the vibrational energy transfer path and configured to provide an increased mechanical compliance in a direction along the vibrational energy transfer path (See openings in torsional spring).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights