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 § 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. Claim s 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claims 14-15, the term " preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. The use of the term “preferably” creates ambiguity about whether limitations that follow are part of the required scope of the claim or merely optional preferences. 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. Claim s 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Berger et al. (US 4,337,896; “Berger”; reference of record) . Regarding claim 1, Berger teaches a device (figures 1-2) for transmitting mechanical vibrations (using ultrasonic electromechanical transducer 11) to flowable media (fuel) , characterized in that the normal amplitudes of the effective surface points of a resonator (vibration amplifier II has a resonant frequency; col. 4, lines 16-24) are substantially uniform (Normal amplitudes of surface points within regions 0.3-0.4 and x2-x3 are substantially uniform, respectively, as seen in figure 3 ) during a resonant vibration and an amplitude vector in the effective surface points of more than 50 percent of an effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of the effective surface points (Because the planes of the surfaces of portion 35 and portion 29 are not substantially parallel, their respective amplitude vectors are also not substantially parallel. See figure 2.) . As for claim 3 , Berger teaches wherein the resonator is substantially rod-shaped (see cylindrical rod shape in figure 2) . As for claim 4 , Berger teaches wherein the resonator is rotationally symmetric (See symmetry in figure 2) . Regarding claim 7 , Berger teaches wherein the resonator (vibration amplifier II) consists of one part (See figure 1) . As for claim 8 , Berger teaches wherein the resonator (vibration amplifier II) is made of a metallic material (col. 3, lines 17-37) . As for claims 11 and 12, Berger teaches w herein the resonator (vibration amplifier II) is mechanically connected to an electromechanical vibration exciter that piezoelectrically or magnetostrictively converts electrical vibrations into mechanical vibrations (See piezoelectric discs 13-14 in figure 1) . Regarding claim 13 , Berger teaches wherein the resonator (vibration amplifier II) is mechanically connected to another resonator (piezoelectric resonators 13-14) . As for claim 14 , Berger teaches wherein more than 80 percent of the effective surface has a normal amplitude in a range of −20 percent to +20 percent about the mean value, preferably more than 85 percent of the effective surface has a normal amplitude in a range of −15 percent to +15 percent about the mean value (Normal amplitudes of surface points within regions 0.3-0.4 and x2-x3 are substantially uniform, respectively, as seen in figure 3) . Regarding claim 15 , Berger teaches wherein the amplitude vector of the effective surface points of more than 70 percent of the effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of these effective surface points, preferably the amplitude vector of the effective surface points of more than 80 percent of the effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of these effective surface points, particularly preferably the amplitude vector of the effective surface points of more than 90 percent of the effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of these effective surface points (Because the planes of the surfaces of portion 35 and portion 29 are not substantially parallel, their respective amplitude vectors are also not substantially parallel. See figure 2.) . Claim s 1-4, 7-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hielscher et al. (US 2015/0314391; “Hielscher”) . Regarding claim 1, Hielscher teaches a device (figure 4) for transmitting mechanical vibrations to flowable media (para. [0022]) , characterized in that the normal amplitudes of the effective surface points of a resonator (ultrasonic transducers; para. [0030]) are substantially uniform (Flat surfaces have substantially uniform normal amplitudes) during a resonant vibration and an amplitude vector in the effective surface points of more than 50 percent of an effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of the effective surface points (Because the planes of the surfaces of portion 2 and portion 5 are not substantially parallel, their respective amplitude vectors are also not substantially parallel. See figure 4) . Regarding claim 2 , Hielscher teaches wherein the resonant vibration is in the range of 15 kilohertz to 60 kilohertz (Para. [003 0 ]) . As for claim 3 , Hielscher teaches wherein the resonator (2) is substantially rod-shaped (para. [0041]) . Regarding claim 4 , Hielscher teaches w herein the resonator is rotationally symmetric (See symmetry in figure 4) . Regarding claim 7 , Hielscher teaches wherein the resonator consists of one part (See figure 4) . As for claim 8 , Hielscher teaches wherein the resonator is made of a metallic material (para. [0031]) . Regarding claim 10 , Hielscher teaches wherein the power transmitted from the resonator via the effective surface to a flowable medium by means of resonant mechanical vibrations is 100 watts to 16000 watts (Para. [0030]) . As for claims 11 and 12, Hielscher teaches w herein the resonator is mechanically connected to an electromechanical vibration exciter that piezoelectrically or magnetostrictively converts electrical vibrations into mechanical vibrations (para. [0030]). Regarding claim 13 , Hielscher teaches wherein the resonator (vibration amplifier II) is mechanically connected to another resonator (piezoelectric resonator exciter; para. [0026]-[0030]) . As for claim 14 , Hielscher teaches wherein more than 80 percent of the effective surface has a normal amplitude in a range of −20 percent to +20 percent about the mean value, preferably more than 85 percent of the effective surface has a normal amplitude in a range of −15 percent to +15 percent about the mean value (Flat surfaces have substantially uniform normal amplitudes) . Regarding claim 15 , Hielscher teaches wherein the amplitude vector of the effective surface points of more than 70 percent of the effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of these effective surface points, preferably the amplitude vector of the effective surface points of more than 80 percent of the effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of these effective surface points, particularly preferably the amplitude vector of the effective surface points of more than 90 percent of the effective surface is not substantially parallel to the normal vector of these effective surface points (Because the planes of the surfaces of portion 2 and portion 5 are not substantially parallel, their respective amplitude vectors are also not substantially parallel. See figure 4.) . 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 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger . Regarding claim 2 , Berger teaches the device of claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the resonant vibration is in the ultrasonic range (Title), but fails to specifically teach wherein the resonant vibration is in the range of 15 kilohertz to 60 kilohertz. However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art that ultrasonic frequencies are frequencies greater than 20 kHz. Furthermore, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the resonant frequency of a transducer is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the resonant frequency of the vibrating transducer of Berger would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonant frequency through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Berger), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the resonant frequency of the transducer of Berger because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonant frequency through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 5 , Berger teaches the device of claim 4 , as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the maximum diameter of the resonator is between 30 millimeters and 120 millimeters. However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the diameter of a resonator is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the resona tor diameter of Berger would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resona tor diameter through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Berger), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the diameter of the resonator of Berger because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resona tor diameter through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 6 , Berger teaches the device of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the maximum of the amplitudes along the effective surface points of a resonator is between 1 and 100 micrometers. However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the amplitude of a resonator is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the resonator amplitude of Berger would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator amplitude through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Berger), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amplitude of the resonator of Berger because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator amplitude through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 9 , Berger teaches the device of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the effective surface of the resonator is 10 square centimeters to 4500 square centimeters. However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the surface area of a resonator is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the surface area of Berger would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator surface area through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Berger), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the surface area of the resonator of Berger because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator surface area through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 10 , Berger teaches the device of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the power transmitted from the resonator via the effective surface to a flowable medium by means of resonant mechanical vibrations is 100 watts to 16000 watts. However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the power output of a resonator is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the power output of Berger would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator power output through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Berger), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the power output of the resonator of Berger because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator power output through routine experimentation. Claim s 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hielscher . Regarding claim 5 , Hielscher teaches the device of claim 4 , as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the maximum diameter of the resonator is between 30 millimeters and 120 millimeters. However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the diameter of a resonator is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the resonator diameter of Hielscher would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator diameter through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Hielscher), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the diameter of the resonator of Hielscher because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator diameter through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 6 , Hielscher teaches the device of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the maximum of the amplitudes along the effective surface points of a resonator is between 1 and 100 micrometers. However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the amplitude of a resonator is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the resonator amplitude of Hielscher would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator amplitude through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Hielscher), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amplitude of the resonator of Hielscher because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator amplitude through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 9 , Hielscher teaches the device of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the effective surface of the resonator is 10 square centimeters to 4500 square centimeters. However, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the surface area of a resonator is a parameter that is determined by way of a design choice made through experimentation. Setting the surface area of Hielscher would be merely an exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator surface area through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (In this case the structure is found in Hielscher ), "...it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the surface area of the resonator of Hielscher because such a modification would have been a mere exercise in finding the optimum and workable range for the resonator surface area through routine experimentation. Conclusion The prior art references made of record and not relied upon teach mechanical vibrators for producing vibrations in flowable media; wherein the mechanical vibrators comprise surfaces with inclined planes. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7971 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 2849 March 6, 2026