DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 01/05/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending. Claims 14-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 12-13 are amended.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-13 and 19 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-18 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims must be listed with the status identifier of (Withdrawn). Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 11 indicates type discrimination, but there is no explanation as to what that is.
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 3, 4, 6, 11, and 13 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 3 indicates a common circle, but it is unclear what a common circle is. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that a common circle is a distance between the transducers.
Claims 4 and 6 is rejected under 112(b) due to dependency on claim 3.
Claim 11 indicates type discrimination. It is unclear whether the ultrasonic cleaner is performing type discrimination or if type discrimination is a way to identify the ultrasonic cleaner. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting type discrimination is a way to identify the ultrasonic cleaner.
Claim 13 states “the ultrasonic cleaner according to claim 1 is used by conveyance”. It is unclear if something else is being conveyed into the ultrasonic cleaner or if the ultrasonic cleaner is moving. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation that the ultrasonic cleaner is used when it is moving.
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 1-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara).
As to claim 1, (Original) Shigihara teaches an ultrasonic cleaner, comprising:
a cleaning tank having a recess that enables insertion of an object to be cleaned (FIGS. 10-11 paragraph [0061] cleaning tank 16C); and
an ultrasonic transducer having a piezoelectric element (FIG. 3 paragraph [0037] piezoelectric ceramic elements 28a and 28b) and a front mass (FIG. 3 paragraph [0039] vibration portion 27 reads on the claimed front mass),
wherein a lateral surface portion of the cleaning tank is provided with a through-hole having an opening on an outer wall surface of the cleaning tank and an inner wall surface of the recess (FIGS. 5 and 10 paragraph [0041] ultrasonic transducer 14 is fixed to the cleaning tank 16 via attachment hole 47. The ultrasonic transducers are on the lateral surface of the cleaning tank 16.),
the front mass is inserted into the through-hole (FIGS. 3 and 10 paragraph [0041] ultrasonic transducer 14 is fixed to the cleaning tank 16 via attachment hole 47), and
a tip portion of the front mass is disposed so as to emit ultrasonic waves from the side of the object to be cleaned (FIG. 3 paragraph [0039] head portion 37 reads on the claimed tip portion and emits ultrasonic waves).
Examiner regards the operation of the claimed ultrasonic cleaner as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The cleaning tank would be capable of receiving a dispensing nozzle and the ultrasonic transducer would be capable of emitting ultrasonic waves from the side of the dispensing nozzle. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 2, (Original) Shigihara further teaches the lateral surface portion of the cleaning tank has a plurality of the ultrasonic transducers installed thereon (FIG. 11 there are a plurality of ultrasonic transducers 14Bb installed on the lateral surface portion of tank 16C).
As to claim 3, (Original) Shigihara further teaches a diameter of a common circle with which tip surfaces of the front masses of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers are in contact is substantially equal to the diameters of the tip surfaces of the front masses (FIG. 11 the distance between the tip surfaces is substantially equal to the diameters of the tip surfaces).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Distance between tip surfaces)]
PNG
media_image1.png
544
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, (Original) Shigihara further teaches two of the ultrasonic transducers are arranged coaxially (FIG. 10 paragraph [0062] the ultrasonic transduces 14Cb and 14Cc on the side walls 46Ca and 46Cb are arranged so that the axes are aligned on the plane.
As to claim 5, (Original) Shigihara further teaches the front mass has a step portion, and the step portion has a seal installed thereon (FIGS. 3 and 5 paragraph [0039] O-ring 43 fits into the groove 44. Groove 44 reads on the claimed step portion.).
As to claim 19, (Original) Shigihara teaches an ultrasonic cleaner, comprising:
a cleaning tank having a recess that enables insertion of a dispensing nozzle to be cleaned (FIGS. 10-11 paragraph [0061] cleaning tank 16C); and
an ultrasonic transducer having a piezoelectric element (FIG. 3 paragraph [0037] piezoelectric ceramic elements 28a and 28b) and a front mass (FIG. 3 paragraph [0039] vibration portion 27 reads on the claimed front mass),
wherein the recess of the cleaning tank has the ultrasonic transducer installed therein (FIGS. 5 and 10 paragraph [0041] ultrasonic transducer 14 is fixed to the cleaning tank 16 via attachment hole 47. The ultrasonic transducers are on the lateral surface of the cleaning tank 16), and
a tip portion of the front mass is disposed so as to emit ultrasonic waves from the side of the dispensing nozzle (FIG. 3 paragraph [0039] head portion 37 reads on the claimed tip portion and emits ultrasonic waves).
Examiner regards the operation of the claimed ultrasonic cleaner as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The cleaning tank would be capable of receiving a dispensing nozzle and the ultrasonic transducer would be capable of emitting ultrasonic waves from the side of the dispensing nozzle. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. KR102112830 (henceforth referred to ask Kim) in view of Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara).
As to claim 1, (Original) Kim teaches an ultrasonic cleaner, comprising:
a cleaning tank having a recess that enables insertion an object to be cleaned to be cleaned (FIG. 26 paragraph [0048] mobile washing container 200); and
an ultrasonic transducer having a front mass (FIG. 27 the circular portion on the ultrasonic vibrator 20 reads on the claimed front mass),
wherein a lateral surface portion of the cleaning tank is provided with a through-hole having an opening on an outer wall surface of the cleaning tank and an inner wall surface of the recess (FIG. 27 paragraph [0048] installation hole 230 is formed on the side wall 210 of the washing container 200),
the front mass is inserted into the through-hole (FIG. 28 the circular portion is inserted into the installation hole 230), and
a tip portion of the front mass is disposed so as to emit ultrasonic waves from the side of the object to be cleaned (FIGS. 27-28 a tip portion of the front mass is disposed to emit ultrasonic waves from the sidewall 210).
Examiner regards the operation of the claimed ultrasonic cleaner as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The cleaning tank would be capable of receiving a dispensing nozzle and the ultrasonic transducer would be capable of emitting ultrasonic waves from the side of the dispensing nozzle. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kim differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a piezoelectric element.
Shigihara teaches a similar ultrasonic cleaner (paragraph [0030] ultrasonic vibration transducer 14). Shigihara teaches a piezoelectric element (FIG. 3 paragraph [0037] piezoelectric ceramic elements 28a and 28b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Kim with a piezoelectric element as taught by Shigihara. It is known in the art to use piezoelectric elements in order to generate ultrasonic vibrations (paragraph [0043]).
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara).
As to claim 6, (Original) Shigihara does not teach an upper end portion of the recess is 0.5 to 1 mm from an upper end portion of the tip surface of the front mass. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed sizes/ proportions are considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in size/ proportion. It is old and well known to change sizes/ proportions, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/ Proportion.
Since the art recognizes that the distance is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an optimal value for the distance in Shigihara, through routine experimentation, and that the claimed distance would have been found obvious through such routine experimentation, unless the applicant can demonstrate unexpected results.
As to claim 8, (Original) Shigihara further teaches an ultrasonic transducer controller (paragraph [0107] control panel 68); and a drive power supply (FIG. 1 paragraph [0043] drive portion 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner with a controller. It is known in the art to use a controller to control aspects of the invention such as the power supply (paragraph [0107]).
As to claim 9, (Original) Shigihara further teaches a conveyance base (FIG. 16 paragraph [0103] ultrasonic wave unit 60G can move along the suspension beam 65).
As to claim 10, (Original) Shigihara further teaches the cleaning tank and the ultrasonic transducer, and the ultrasonic transducer controller and the drive power supply can be installed separately (FIG. 1, 5, 16 and 18 the cleaning tank, ultrasonic transducer, ultrasonic transducer controller and the drive power supply can be installed separately).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara) in view of Tanaka et al. U.S. Patent 6,138,698 (henceforth referred to as Tanaka).
As to claim 7, (Original) Shigihara differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a shake detection unit, wherein the shake detection unit is configured to stop driving of the ultrasonic transducer upon detecting shake.
Tanaka teaches a similar ultrasonic cleaner (column 3 lines 27-28 ultrasonic cleaning apparatus). Tanaka teaches a shake detection unit (column 4 lines 54-57 detecting device 50, which comprises of output sensors 51, detect abnormal ultrasonic vibrations), wherein the shake detection unit is configured to stop driving of the ultrasonic transducer upon detecting shake (column 5 lines 22-25 if the abnormal condition of the ultrasonic unit 3 is detected, the ultrasonic cleaning apparatus is interrupted immediately).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara with a shake detection unit as taught by Tanaka. It would have been obvious to use a shake detection unit to detect a vibration abnormality to determine whether or not the ultrasonic oscillation unit 3 is functioning correctly (column 5 lines 24-25).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara) in view of Sakurai et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0199794 (henceforth referred to as Sakurai).
As to claim 11, (Original) Shigihara differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a barcode, a QR code (registered trademark), or an IC chip that enables type discrimination.
Sakurai teaches a similar ultrasonic cleaner (paragraph [0024] ultrasonic operating apparatus). Sakurai teaches a barcode, a QR code (registered trademark), or an IC chip that enables type discrimination (FIG. 3 paragraph [0036] the information storage element 12 is an integrated circuit chip. paragraph [0068] the identification information and the use history information is stored in the information storage element 12c, 12d or 12e).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara with a way to determine type discrimination as taught by Sakurai. It is known in the art to know the identification information and the use history information in order to manage and monitor the use status, sterilization, and cleaning of the transducer probes (paragraph [0068]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0161829 (henceforth referred to as Horie) in view of Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara).
As to claim 12, (Currently amended) Horie teaches an automatic analyzer (paragraph [0043] automatic analyzer 10) and an ultrasonic cleaner (paragraph [0045] ultrasonic cleaner 26).
Horie differs from the instant claim in failing to teach an ultrasonic cleaner according to claim 1.
Shigihara teaches the ultrasonic cleaner according to claim 1 (see above rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic analyzer as taught by Horie with an ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara. The ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara is one of the ways in which the ultrasonic cleaner can be configured.
As to claim 13, (Currently amended) Shigihara further teaches the ultrasonic cleaner according to claim 1 is used by conveyance (paragraph [0105] ultrasonic wave unit 60G can move in both the X-direction, Y-direction, and the Z-direction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711