Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/403,831

SONOTRODE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 04, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Alma Lasers Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
403 granted / 767 resolved
-17.5% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
829
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.9%
+9.9% vs TC avg
§102
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 767 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION 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 1-4, 8-10, 13-14 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO 2020/111831), in view of Alexander et al. (US 2019/0091490) and further in view of Steiner et al. (US 2004/0038598). Addressing claim 1, Cho discloses a device suitable for treating subcutaneous tissue, comprising: a. an ultrasonic transducer for generation of ultrasonic vibrations having a proximal face and a distal face (see Fig. 3; transducer 210); b. a sonotrode with a sonotrode axis including: i. a proximal face in contact with, and acoustically-coupled to, said distal face of said ultrasonic transducer, ii. a conical portion having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein said conical portion is defined by a conical wall having an outer conical surface and an inner conical surface, the inner conical surface having a conical angle, which inner conical surface at least partially defines a hollow, and iii. a ring portion extending radially outwards from said distal end of said conical portion having a ring-shaped proximal face and a ring-shaped distal face which is a working face of sonotrode, a hole of said working face constituting an open end of said hollow, the proximal end of the conical portion having a proximal end radius and the distal end of the conical portion having a distal end radius, wherein the distal end radius is greater than the proximal end radius (see Figs. 1-3; sonotrode 102 inner surface/proximal surface in contact with transducer 210 distal surface; a conical opening treatment end with hollow inside; ring-shape treatment proximal surface; cone/conical shape: a cone shape is a 3D geometric figure with a flat, circular base that tapers smoothly to a single point called the apex or vertex, forming a curved surface; special type of cone does not has line segments for curve surface; a cone: a solid or hollow object which tapers from a circular or roughly circular base to a point; a cone does not require to have straight line segment; there are many definition of a cone and not just mathematical definition as see also the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the conclusion section (2018/0353988 discloses a curve cone (see Figs. 1, 3 and [0061]; curved coned)). There are unique shape cones). PNG media_image1.png 884 554 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 416 398 media_image2.png Greyscale Cho does not disclose the ring portion having a ring portion distance from a center of the ring portion to an outer edge of the ring portion and the ring portion distance is greater than the distal end radius. Alexander discloses the ring portion having a ring portion distance from a center of the ring portion to an outer edge of the ring portion and the ring portion distance is greater than the distal end radius (see Fig. 3, ring 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho to have the ring portion having a ring portion distance from a center of the ring portion to an outer edge of the ring portion and the ring portion distance is greater than the distal end radius as taught by Alexander because this improves longitudinal and efficient vibration (see [0101] and [0128]). Cho does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the inner conical surface from the proximal end to the distal end of the conical portion is linear, wherein the conical angle along the at least a portion of the conical wall from the proximal end to the distal end of the conical portion is constant. This is just one type of cone shape and it only require routine skill in the art to use any type of cone shape. Steiner discloses wherein at least a portion of the inner conical surface from the proximal end to the distal end of the conical portion is linear, wherein the conical angle along the at least a portion of the conical wall from the proximal end to the distal end of the conical portion is constant (see [0019], Fig. 6 and claim 17; Steiner discloses a sonotrode with cone shape head surface). Examiner only relies on Steiner to explicitly disclose a type of cone that only require routine skill in the art. The court agreed that changes in shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Addressing claims 4 and 9-10, Cho discloses: addressing claim 4, configured to apply suction to a skin-surface through said hole of said working face of said sonotrode (see Figs. 1-3; the cone shape provides suction/vacuum). addressing claim 9, said sonotrode further comprising a stem, said stem having a proximal face that is said proximal face of said sonotrode and a distal end which is said proximal end of said conical wall (see Figs. 1-3). addressing claim 10, said sonotrode comprising a proximal channel between said hollow and outside of said sonotrode near said transducer (see Fig. 3, 110). Addressing claims 2-3, 13-14 and 22-24, Alexander discloses: addressing claim 2, wherein said sonotrode is configured for a selected ultrasonic driving frequency, to act as an acoustic amplitude transformer for both longitudinal and transverse vibration (see abstract, [0005-0006], [0012], [0048], [0051], [0053] and Fig. 3; Alexander’s abstract, [0006] and [0012] disclose amplify transverse and longitudinal vibration); addressing claim 3, wherein said configuration to act as an acoustic amplitude transformer for longitudinal vibration at said selected ultrasonic driving frequency is that the length of the sonotrode from the proximal face to the working face is: nλlongitudinal/2 where n is a positive integer; and λlongitudinal is the wavelength of ultrasonic longitudinal waves in the sonotrode (see abstract, [0005-0006], [0012], [0048], [0051], [0053] and Fig. 3; the length of the sonotrode is half wavelength; [0051] and [0053] disclose length of 55 mm and diameter 88 mm; this is within range of nλ/2 for selected frequency for longitudinal and transverse; the application specification discloses length of 50 mm and diameter of 90 mm (see [0155-0156])); addressing claim 21, wherein said configuration to act as an acoustic amplitude transformer for transverse vibration at said selected ultrasonic driving frequency is that the diameter of the sonotrode from the proximal face to the working face is: nλtranserse/2 where n is a positive integer greater than 0; and λtransverse is the wavelength of ultrasonic transverse waves in the sonotrode (see abstract, [0005-0006], [0012], [0048], [0051], [0053] and Fig. 3; the length of the sonotrode is half wavelength; [0051] and [0053] disclose length of 55 mm and diameter 88 mm; this is within range of nλ/2 for selected frequency for longitudinal and transverse; the application specification discloses length of 50 mm and diameter of 90 mm (see [0155-0156])); addressing claims 13 and 23-24wherein said ultrasonic transducer is configured to operate at a driving frequency of between 30 kHz and 200 kHz (see [0048]); addressing claim 14, an ultrasound power supply to drive the ultrasonic transducer at a driving frequency of between 30 kHz and 200 kHz (see [0048]). Addressing claim 8, Cho does not disclose wherein the diameter of said hole is between 10% and 70% of the diameter of said ring portion. However, this is just a designer choice that only require routine skill in the art. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Claims 5-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO 2020/111831), in view of Alexander et al. (US 2019/0091490), further in view of Steiner et al. (US 2004/0038598) and Ahn (KR 101721441). Addressing claims 5-7 and 11-12, Cho does not disclose to irradiate a skin-surface apparent through said hole of said working face of said sonotrode with electromagnetic radiation; a prestressed Langevin-type transducer include an axial bolt wherein said axial bolt includes an axial passage between said distal end and said proximal end of said axial bolt; wherein said ultrasonic transducer is a prestressed Langevin- type transducer including an axial bolt having an axial passage between a distal end and a proximal end of said axial bolt, and said sonotrode comprising a bore for engaging said distal end of said axial bolt, so that said said proximal channel of said sonotrode and said axial passage of said axial bolt together provide communication between said hollow and said proximal end of said axial bolt; said sonotrode comprising a non-axial through-channel providing communication between said hollow and outside of said sonotrode through said conical wall. Using any type of transducer is just a designer choice. Ahn discloses irradiate a skin-surface apparent through said hole of said working face of said sonotrode with electromagnetic radiation; a prestressed Langevin-type transducer include an axial bolt wherein said axial bolt includes an axial passage between said distal end and said proximal end of said axial bolt; wherein said ultrasonic transducer is a prestressed Langevin- type transducer including an axial bolt having an axial passage between a distal end and a proximal end of said axial bolt, and said sonotrode comprising a bore for engaging said distal end of said axial bolt, so that said said proximal channel of said sonotrode and said axial passage of said axial bolt together provide communication between said hollow and said proximal end of said axial bolt; said sonotrode comprising a non-axial through-channel providing communication between said hollow and outside of said sonotrode through said conical wall (see Figs. 2, 4-7, [0052-0056]; Langevin-type transducer is just a transducer that is press between two masses; bolt 430 prestress the transducer 420; passage 401; proximal channel 120A-B; non-axial channel 300; laser is the electromagnetic radiation treatment; laser hole is a waveguide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho to irradiate a skin-surface apparent through said hole of said working face of said sonotrode with electromagnetic radiation; a prestressed Langevin-type transducer include an axial bolt wherein said axial bolt includes an axial passage between said distal end and said proximal end of said axial bolt; wherein said ultrasonic transducer is a prestressed Langevin- type transducer including an axial bolt having an axial passage between a distal end and a proximal end of said axial bolt, and said sonotrode comprising a bore for engaging said distal end of said axial bolt, so that said said proximal channel of said sonotrode and said axial passage of said axial bolt together provide communication between said hollow and said proximal end of said axial bolt; said sonotrode comprising a non-axial through-channel providing communication between said hollow and outside of said sonotrode through said conical wall as taught by Ahn because this is designer choice that securely integrate the transducer in the device; provide drug/solution treatment to the patient and laser treatment provide effective treatment to a certain treatment type (see [0048] and [0055]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 22-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0330194 (see Fig. 3A and [0086]) and US 2018/0353988 (see Figs. 1, 3 and [0061]; curved coned) and US 5,490,810 (see Figs. 4 and 6, sonotrode 18 and 22 having truncated cone shape with ring at its larger base). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm. 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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. /HIEN N NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 04, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569160
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING POSITION OF LONG MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564736
NON-INVASIVE ULTRASOUND NEUROMODULATION FOR VISION RESTORATION FROM RETINAL DISEASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558574
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PARAMETERISING A HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND TREATMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551729
MULTI-BEAM NEUROMODULATION TECHNIQUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12543959
DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING OF PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL PERFUSION OF A SUBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+39.8%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 767 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month