DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 5/8/2026. Claims 1-2 and 5-16 are pending, claims 3-4 have been cancelled by the applicant and claims 15 and 16 have been newly added by applicant. A final action on the merits of claims 1-2 and 5-16 is as follows.
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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houser (US 20090036914 A1) in view of Madan et al. (hereinafter ‘Madan’, US 6278218 B1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Houser discloses an ultrasound treatment tool (ultrasonic treatment tool in Figs. 1 and 4) comprising:
an ultrasound transducer (ultrasound transducer 14 in Fig. 1; [0052]: the transducer includes a transduction portion 18, a first resonator portion 20, and a second resonator portion 22, and ancillary components; [0054]: the fore-bell 22 may be tapered inwardly from its proximal end to its distal end to amplify the ultrasonic vibration amplitude as the velocity transformer 28 – thus fore-bell 22 forms the transformer 28 which in turn means the transformer 28 is part of the transducer) configured to generate ultrasound vibration ([Abstract]: the transducer is configured to produce vibrations at a predetermined frequency);
a vibration transmission portion (transmission waveguide 104 in Fig. 1) configured to transmit the ultrasound vibration ([0004]: vibrations generated by the transducer section are transmitted to the surgical end effector via an ultrasonic waveguide extending from the transducer section to the surgical end effector); and
a fastener (stud 48 in Fig. 1) that includes a first fastening portion screwed with the ultrasound transducer (first fastening portion is the portion inside of the transducer portion 28 as seen in Fig. 1) and a second fastening portion screwed with the vibration transmission portion (second fastening portion is the portion that extends into the ultrasonic waveguide 104 in Fig. 1), the fastener being configured to connect the ultrasound transducer and the vibration transmission portion ([0058]: the distal end of the ultrasonic transducer may be coupled at the surface 30 to the proximal end of the waveguide by a threaded connection such as a cannulated threaded stud 48), wherein
the vibration transmission portion is formed of a material ([0063]: the waveguide 104 may be made from titanium alloy, or any suitable aluminum allow), the proximal end portion being screwed with the second fastening portion (the proximal end portion is screwed with the second fastening portion as seen in Figs. 1 and 2).
a first female screw portion that is recessed toward a proximal end of the ultrasound transducer is arranged in a distal end portion of the ultrasound transducer (first female screw portion 69 in Figs. 2 and 5 that are recessed in a distal end portion of the transducer), the distal end portion being screwed with the first fastening portion (the distal end portion is screwed with the first fastening portion as seen in Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5);
the proximal end portion includes a second female screw portion that is recessed toward a distal end of the vibration transmission portion (portion 66 in Figs. 2 and 5 which are recessed female screw portions into the vibration transmission portion);
the second fastening portion is a male portion that is screwed with the second female screw portion and is set to be in contact with a bottom surface of the second female screw portion (the second fastening portion is a male portion that screws into the second female screw portion as seen in Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 and touches the bottom and back surface of the recessed hole as annotated below – bottom is a vague term because it depends on the orientation of the device and the claim is not specific to the orientation of the device; in the case of Fig. 2, there is a small bottom surface in the vertical direction that the screw touches; in Fig. 5 it is unclear if the stud extends all of the way to the back but it is shown to extend all of the way to the back of the slot in Fig. 4); and
the first fastening portion is a male screw portion screwed with the first female screw portion and is set to be in no contact with a bottom surface of the first female screw portion (in the case where the device is vertical, there is no contact between the first male portion and the first female portion in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
240
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
291
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
564
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Houser is silent to the material of the fastener stud.
Madan teaches an ultrasonic transducer and a method of tuning such a transducer by selecting from a plurality of tuning elements ([Abstract]). Similar to Houser, Madan teaches a velocity transformer 64 of an ultrasonic transducer 82 that connects to a waveguide via a threaded stud 50 as seen in Fig. 1 ([Col 1, lines 40-45]; [Col 4, lines 63-67]). The transducer of Houser is a stacked transducer known as a “Langevin stack” ([0072]). The transducer of Houser is tuned by selecting the length of the assembly to be an integral number of one-half wavelengths ([0059}. The transducer of Madan is also a “Langevin stack” type of transducer ([Col 3, lines 43-53]). Madan teaches that typically, these stack up type transducers are individually tuned during the manufacturing process but can still result in “stack-up” issues arising due to the combining of multiple parts where variations due to each part sum together to produce a significant variation ([Col 2, lines 19-29]). Typically, these types of transducers are made longer than necessary and trimmed down to the desired tuning range ([Col 2, lines 30-44]). This trimming process often occurs at attachment surfaces where other acoustic assemblies, such as the end-effector, are to be attached ([Col 2, lines 30-44]). The trimming also modifies the surface finish quality which is an important parameter for efficient acoustic assemblies, and the trimming process can lead to significant manufacturing issues and expense ([Col 2, lines 30-44]). Madan teaches that these “Stack-up” resonant frequency discrepancies of the acoustic assembly can be corrected by proper selection of a tuning element such as stud 50, rather than through trimming the length of the acoustic assembly ([Col 5, lines 16-31]). The stud can be selected from a variety of lengths and materials, such as stainless steel or tungsten, to achieve the desired resonant frequency ([Col 6, lines 4-21]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a stud made of stainless steel or tungsten that is the desired length to achieve the desired tuning frequency as taught by Madan because doing so would eliminate the need to trim the acoustic assembly of Houser during the tuning process thus eliminating “stack-up” issues while preserving the finish on the acoustic assembly. This would in turn result in the claimed invention because utilizing a stainless steel or tungsten stud would mean the stud is made of a stronger material than the aluminum vibration transmission portion.
While Houser shows no contact in figure 4, the lack of contact is not explicitly explained.
Similarly, Madan teaches that the stud may not contact the back of the recess in the transducer as shown in Fig. 3. The threaded portion does not extend all of the way back into the bore as seen in Fig. 3 ([Col 5, lines 9-15]). The relationship between the stud size and insertion into the bore allows for “stack-up” frequency discrepancies to be corrected ([Col 5, lines 16-31]). Furthermore, varying the length of the stud and the depth of insertion into the bore can vary the location of the center of mass of stud 50 within the distal-end 95 in order to correct resonant frequency variations ([Col 6, lines 56-65]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the stud such that it does not touch the back of the bore in the transducer in order to ensure the center of mass of the stud is in a location that corrects resonant frequency variations.
Regarding claim 2, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 1. Houser further discloses that the assembly may be connected on the stud and torqued to the required level ([0065]). The claimed limitation of “a torque at a time of detachment of the first fastening portion from the ultrasound transducer is set to be smaller than a torque at a time of detachment of the second fastening portion from the vibration transmission portion” is simply a byproduct of the assembly process. Applicant has not claimed any specific structure that sets the torque. In the specification of the instant application, the Applicant discloses that the torque is simply a result of how tight the operator torques each piece together ([0030]-[0032]). The Houser/Madan combination is capable of being torqued to the required levels as it merely depends on how tight and in what order the operator attaches both pieces. The device itself does not torque the pieces together. Therefore, since Houser discloses that the assembly may be torqued to the required level during assembly, Houser is inherently capable of setting a torque at a time of detachment of the first fastening portion from the ultrasound transducer to be smaller than a torque at a time of detachment of the second fastening portion from the vibration transmission portion.
Regarding claim 9, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the invention according to claim 1 as described above. Houser further discloses that the assembly may be connected on the stud and torqued to the required level ([0065]). The claimed limitation of “fastening torque of the fastener with respect to the vibration transmission portion is set to be equal to or larger than 0.33 times of a fastening torque of the fastener with respect to the ultrasound transducer” is simply a byproduct of the assembly process. Applicant has not claimed any specific structure that sets the torque. In the specification of the instant application, the Applicant discloses that the torque is simply a result of how tight the operator torques each piece together ([0030]-[0032]). The Houser/Madan combination is capable of being torqued to the required levels as it merely depends on how tight and in what order the operator attaches both pieces. The device itself does not torque the pieces together. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the torque of the fastener with respect to the vibration transmission portion to be equal to or larger than 0.33 times of a fastening torque of the fastener with respect to the ultrasound transducer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the torque of each piece to the claimed value since it is merely a byproduct of how tight the operator tightens each piece during assembly and finding the optimum torque range involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 1, wherein the proximal end portion is made of an aluminum alloy (Houser discloses the waveguide may be aluminum [0063]).
Regarding independent claim 12, Houser discloses a method of manufacturing an ultrasound treatment tool that includes:
an ultrasound transducer (ultrasound transducer 14 in Fig. 1; [0052]: the transducer includes a transduction portion 18, a first resonator portion 20, and a second resonator portion 22, and ancillary components; [0054]: the fore-bell 22 may be tapered inwardly from its proximal end to its distal end to amplify the ultrasonic vibration amplitude as the velocity transformer 28 – thus fore-bell 22 forms the transformer 28 which in turn means the transformer 28 is part of the transducer) configured to generate ultrasound vibration ([Abstract]: the transducer is configured to produce vibrations at a predetermined frequency); and
a vibration transmission portion (transmission waveguide 104 in Fig. 1) configured to transmit the ultrasound vibration ([0004]: vibrations generated by the transducer section are transmitted to the surgical end effector via an ultrasonic waveguide extending from the transducer section to the surgical end effector),
the method comprises:
screwing a fastener with the proximal end portion of the vibration transmission portion ([0058]: the waveguide is coupled to the stud 48 via a threaded connection), which is made of aluminum ([0063]: the waveguide is made of aluminum); and
screwing the fastener with the ultrasound transducer ([0058]: the distal end of the transducer is connected to the waveguide through the threaded stud 48; Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 show the threads into the transducer), wherein
a first female screw portion that is recessed toward a proximal end of the ultrasound transducer is arranged in a distal end portion of the ultrasound transducer (first female screw portion 69 in Figs. 2 and 5 that are recessed in a distal end portion of the transducer), the distal end portion being screwed with a first fastening portion of the fastener (screwed with first fastening portion of the fastener as seen in Fig. 4);
the proximal end portion includes a second female screw portion that is recessed toward a distal end of the vibration transmission portion (portion 66 in Figs. 2 and 5 which are recessed female screw portions into the vibration transmission portion),
a second fastening portion of the fastener is a male screw portion screwed with the second female screw portion (the second fastening portion is a male portion that screws into the second female screw portion as seen in Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) and is set to be in contact with a bottom surface of the second female screw portion (the second fastening portion of the fastener is a male portion in contact with a bottom surface of the second female screw portion as seen in Fig. 4 and highlighted below);
the fastener is screwed with each of the vibration transmission portion and the ultrasound transducer to set a torque at a time of detachment ([0065]: the assembly is torqued to a required level).
the first fastening portion is a male screw portion screwed with the first female screw portion (the fastener has a male screw that is screwed with the first female fastening portion as seen in Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) and is set to be in no contact with a bottom surface of the first female screw portion (first male portion is in no contact with the first female portion as shown in highlighted annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
564
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Houser does not disclose that the stud is configured with a material that has a higher strength than a proximal end portion of the vibration transmission portion.
Madan teaches an ultrasonic transducer and a method of tuning such a transducer by selecting from a plurality of tuning elements ([Abstract]). Similar to Houser, Madan teaches a velocity transformer 64 of an ultrasonic transducer 82 that connects to a waveguide via a threaded stud 50 as seen in Fig. 1 ([Col 1, lines 40-45]; [Col 4, lines 63-67]). The transducer of Houser is a stacked transducer known as a “Langevin stack” ([0072]). The transducer of Houser is tuned by selecting the length of the assembly to be an integral number of one-half wavelengths ([0059}. The transducer of Madan is also a “Langevin stack” type of transducer ([Col 3, lines 43-53]). Madan teaches that typically, these stack up type transducers are individually tuned during the manufacturing process but can still result in “stack-up” issues arising due to the combining of multiple parts where variations due to each part sum together to produce a significant variation ([Col 2, lines 19-29]). Typically, these types of transducers are made longer than necessary and trimmed down to the desired tuning range ([Col 2, lines 30-44]). This trimming process often occurs at attachment surfaces where other acoustic assemblies, such as the end-effector, are to be attached ([Col 2, lines 30-44]). The trimming also modifies the surface finish quality which is an important parameter for efficient acoustic assemblies, and the trimming process can lead to significant manufacturing issues and expense ([Col 2, lines 30-44]). Madan teaches that these “Stack-up” resonant frequency discrepancies of the acoustic assembly can be corrected by proper selection of a tuning element such as stud 50, rather than through trimming the length of the acoustic assembly ([Col 5, lines 16-31]). The stud can be selected from a variety of lengths and materials, such as stainless steel or tungsten, to achieve the desired resonant frequency ([Col 6, lines 4-21]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a stud made of stainless steel or tungsten that is the desired length to achieve the desired tuning frequency as taught by Madan because doing so would eliminate the need to trim the acoustic assembly of Houser during the tuning process thus eliminating “stack-up” issues while preserving the finish on the acoustic assembly. This would in turn result in the claimed invention because utilizing a stainless steel or tungsten stud would mean the stud is made of a stronger material than the aluminum vibration transmission portion.
However, the Houser/Madan combination is silent to screwing the fastener in such that the torque at the time of detachment of the fastener from the ultrasound transducer is set to be smaller than a torque at a time of detachment of the second fastening portion from the vibration transmission portion.
The claimed limitation of is part of the assembly process. Applicant has not claimed any specific structure that sets the torque. In the specification of the instant application, the Applicant discloses that the torque is simply a result of how tight the operator torques each piece together ([0030]-[0032]). The Houser/Madan combination is capable of being torqued to the required levels as it merely depends on how tight and in what order the operator attaches both pieces, as stated in paragraph [0065]. The device itself does not torque the pieces together. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made screw the fastener and the waveguide together tighter than the fastener and the transducer since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The torque specifications are simply the optimum or workable ranges of the tightening force and the Houser/Madan combination has disclosed that these can be tightened together to whatever predetermined torque is required. Therefore, since Houser discloses that the assembly may be torqued to the required level during assembly, Houser is inherently capable of screwing the fastener and waveguide together tighter than the fastener and the transducer, and doing so is simply attaching them in the optimum or workable torque range which involves only routine skill in the art.
While Houser shows no contact in figure 4, the lack of contact is not explicitly explained.
Similarly, Madan teaches that the stud may not contact the back of the recess in the transducer as shown in Fig. 3. The threaded portion does not extend all of the way back into the bore as seen in Fig. 3 ([Col 5, lines 9-15]). The relationship between the stud size and insertion into the bore allows for “stack-up” frequency discrepancies to be corrected ([Col 5, lines 16-31]). Furthermore, varying the length of the stud and the depth of insertion into the bore can vary the location of the center of mass of stud 50 within the distal-end 95 in order to correct resonant frequency variations ([Col 6, lines 56-65]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the stud such that it does not touch the back of the bore in the transducer in order to ensure the center of mass of the stud is in a location that corrects resonant frequency variations.
Regarding claim 13, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein
screwing the fastener with the vibration transmission portion includes inserting the second fastening portion into the second female screw portion to screw the second fastening portion with the second female screw portion and to bring the second fastening portion into contact with a bottom surface of the second female screw portion (the method is inherent from the disclosed structure where the male screw portion touches the bottom and back surface of the recessed hole as annotated below – bottom is a vague term because it depends on the orientation of the device and the claim is not specific to the orientation of the device; in the case of Fig. 2, there is a small bottom surface in the vertical direction that the screw touches; in Fig. 5 it is unclear if the stud extends all of the way to the back but it is shown to extend all of the way to the back of the slot in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
240
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
291
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein
screwing the fastener with the ultrasound transducer includes inserting the first fastening portion into the first female screw portion to screw the first fastening portion with the first female screw portion and to prevent the first fastening portion from coming into contact with a bottom surface of the first female screw portion (in the case where the device is vertical, there is no contact between the first male portion and the first female portion in Fig. 4 when the first fastening portion is inserted into the female screw portion – the method inherently follows from the structure; additionally the combination above teaches inserting to a depth that does not result in contact to improve signal transmission as described above).
Regarding claim 15, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 1, wherein an end surface of the second fastening portion is in contact with the bottom surface of the second female screw portion (as shown in the annotated Fig. 4 above, the end surface of the second fastening portion is in contact with the bottom surface of the second female screw portion).
Regarding claim 16, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein an end surface of the second fastening portion is in contact with the bottom surface of the second female screw portion (as shown in the annotated Fig. 4 above, the end surface of the second fastening portion is in contact with the bottom surface of the second female screw portion).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houser/Madan combination in further view of Houser et al. (hereinafter “Houser ‘263”, US 20120116263 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 1, wherein
a distal end of the ultrasound transducer and a proximal end of the vibration transmission portion are in contact with each other when the ultrasound transducer and the vibration transmission portion are connected to each other by the fastener (the distal end of the transducer and proximal end of the vibration transmission portion are in contact when connected by the fastener as seen in Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5); and
the distance between an anti-node and its nearest node is one-quarter wavelength ([0056] – thus the location of the nodes and anti-nodes simply depends on the wavelength)
However, the combination is silent to the location of the anti-node and node positions near the stud.
Houser ‘263 teaches a surgical instrument that is separable into a transducer unit and a lower body portion that includes a waveguide ([Abstract]). Houser ‘263 further teaches various connection mechanisms between the transducer unit and the lower body portion, one even being a threaded connection, as seen in Figs. 2-17. Houser ‘263 goes on to further state that the antinode can be placed in any desirable location such as in the most proximal connection face, the most distal connection face, or located anywhere along these locations ([0042]). Houser ‘263 additionally states that the interface may be located anywhere between a node and an antinode ([0042]). Furthermore, as stated by the applicant in paragraph [0069] as well as by Houser ‘263 in paragraph [0042], the antinodes and nodes are parts of the ultrasonic wave produced and not physical structures of the device itself. Additionally, the applicant has not claimed any particular structure or waveform length and/or frequency that results in the claimed antinode and node placement. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure the contact position and the bottom surface of the second female screw portion of the vibration transmission portion are between an anti-node and a node as taught by Houser ‘263, since applicant has not disclosed that this node and antinode placement is created by any particular structure, or occurs at any specific wavelength or frequency, or solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any node and antinode placement. Therefore, because Houser ‘263 discloses arranging the connection face to be anywhere between an antinode and node and the Houser/Madan combination has the claimed structure and is capable of forming an ultrasonic wave, it would be an obvious design choice to modify the ultrasonic wave produced such that the connection face and bottom of the female screw portion are between the antinode and nodes of the ultrasonic wave.
Regarding claim 6, the Houser/Madan/Houser ‘263 combination discloses the invention in claim 5 as described above. Houser ‘263 further teaches that the antinode can be placed on the most proximal connection face between the transducer and the waveguide ([0042]). While the connection type is different, in the combination the screw fastener’s most proximal connection face is the location where the screw and base of the transducer recession are close to each other. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure the antinode is located at the most proximal portion of the connection as taught by Houser ‘263, since applicant has not disclosed that this antinode placement is created by any particular structure, occurs at any specific wavelength or frequency, solves any stated problem, or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any antinode placement. Therefore, because Houser ‘263 discloses arranging the antinode to be placed on the most proximal portion of the connection and the Houser/Madan combination has the claimed structure and is capable of forming an ultrasonic wave, it would be an obvious design choice to modify the ultrasonic wave produced such that the antinode occurs closer to the bottom of the recess of the transducer than it does to the vibration transmission portion.
Regarding claim 7, the Houser/Madan/Houser ‘263 combination discloses the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 6, wherein the bottom surface of the female screw portion of the ultrasound transducer is located at the anti-node position among the anti-node position and the node position that are adjacent to each other (in the Houser/Madan/Houser ‘263 combination, the antinode is placed in the most proximal portion of the connection which is the bottom surface of the female screw portion of the ultrasound transducer as described above).
Regarding claim 8, the Houser/Madan/Houser ‘263 combination discloses the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 5, wherein a connection portion between the ultrasound transducer and the vibration transmission portion by the fastener is set to reduce an acoustic impedance of components from the proximal end side toward the distal end side (the specification of the instant application states in paragraphs [0034] and [0069] that the acoustic impedance is reduced through material selection, specifically that the transducer is titanium, the stud is titanium or stainless steel, and the transmission portion is aluminum; this is the same for the present combination – Houser discloses the waveguide may be aluminum [0063], Madan teaches that the transducer may be titanium [Col 3, lines 54-67], and the stud may be stainless steel [Col 6, lines 14-21]; thus, because the claim is written functionally and the materials disclosed by the combination are the same materials from the instant application, the combination has the claimed reduction in acoustic impedance; the claim language is satisfied because the acoustic impedance is reduced in several connection portions between the transducer and the transmission unit – i.e. between the stainless steel stud and the aluminum waveguide, between the titanium transducer and the aluminum waveguide, and between the titanium transducer and the stainless steel stud).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houser/Madan combination in further view of Sawada (US 20160263403 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the Houser/Madan combination discloses the ultrasound treatment tool according to claim 1 as described above. Houser seems to further indicate that portions of the stud are threaded opposite of one another as shown in the annotated figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image5.png
236
465
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, the combination does not discuss the thread directions of the stud.
Sawada teaches an ultrasonic treatment device that includes a connecting unit that connects a vibration generating unit to a probe ([Abstract]). Similar to the Houser/Madan combination, the connecting unit can be a double sided stud as seen in Figs. 11-13. Sawada further states that the first engagement portion of the connection unit is a right-handed screw and the second engagement portion is a left-handed screw ([0078]). This results in the two engagement portions having spirals in the opposite directions ([0078]). Sawada further teaches that utilizing opposite threading can allow for the fastener to be detached from only one side and repositioned to a better angle ([0083]). While Sawada relies on holding the connection unit, the same result would occur by loosening the waveguide of the Houser/Madan combination since the rotation of the waveguide in one direction would tighten the fastener against the waveguide and loosen the faster from the transducer, allowing for repositioning. This would further inherently result in preventing overtightening because when the waveguide is attached it will only be able to tighten a set amount before the connection with the transducer would begin to loosen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the opposite threading configuration of Sawada with the stud of the Houser/Madan combination in order to allow for easy repositioning and prevent overtightening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 5/8/2026, with respect to the objection of claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 5/8/2026, with respect to the 112b rejections of claims 3-8 and 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 112b rejections of claims 3-8 and 13-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 regarding the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially argues that Houser/Madan combination does not address the instant application’s concerns relating to fastening strength, retention, or behavior during disassembly. This is not persuasive. The claimed structure is disclosed by the Houser/Madan combination. The purpose or function of this structure is not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant additionally argues that the neither Houser nor Madan discuss the asymmetric arrangement of the stud, stating that Madan only focusses on the no-contact side and does not address the arrangement in which the other side is in contact with the bottom of the female threading, further stating that this asymmetric arrangement aids in disassembly behavior. This is not persuasive. The asymmetric arrangement is directly disclosed in Houser Fig. 4. Figure 4 clearly shows the stud in contact with the bottom of the threaded connection on one side as annotated above and in a no-contact state with the other side of the threaded connection as annotated above. Madan is simply used to provide reasoning for the non-contact state on one side since Houser discloses multiple embodiments. Utilizing the rationale taught by Madan to ensure one side does not contact the base of the threads such that it can be accurately tuned would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, as evidenced by US 20140005668 A1 Rhee et al., US 20140005681 A1 Gee et al., US 20140005701 A1 Olson et al., the claimed asymmetric arrangement is well known in the art. Figure 8 of each of these publications shows the claimed asymmetric configuration regarding the stud’s insertion. While the applicant states that the claimed asymmetric arrangement is for a different purpose than the prior art, this purpose is not claimed and the structure is still disclosed by the prior art of record.
Applicant’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art, following the guidance of Houser and Madan, would not arrive at the claimed asymmetric arrangement is not persuasive. Houser clearly shows the claimed arrangement in Fig. 4. That alone would be enough for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed arrangement. Madan is simply utilized to provide even further rational that the stud can be positioned in whatever arrangement is best to correct resonant frequency variations ([Col 6, lines 56-65]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the claimed asymmetrical arrangement since it is directly disclosed in Houser and Madan teaches that the stud insertion depth can be modified in any way desired to correct for frequency variations.
PNG
media_image6.png
654
1151
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments that the office action relies on the contact side being dependent upon the orientation of the device is not persuasive. The office action includes the relationship depending upon orientation because the claim is so broad. The claimed term “bottom” inherently relies upon orientation. Bottom is defined as the lowest part of something. The lowest part is based on the orientation of the device. The rejection of record simply shows that no matter the orientation (horizontal or vertical) the stud touches the bottom on the contact side. That is why in the annotated figures, the “bottom” is labelled as “bottom when horizontal” and “bottom when vertical.” The stud contacts the bottoms in both orientations, the examiner is simply being thorough since the term utilized is so broad. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections to independent claims 1 and 12 are maintained.
The rejections to the dependent claims 2, 5-11, and 13-16 are maintained because their rejections are not specifically challenged by the applicant and they are dependent upon rejected independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140005668 A1 Rhee et al., US 20140005681 A1 Gee et al., US 20140005701 A1 Olson et al. all of which show the claimed asymmetric stud insertion configuration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM E MOSSBROOK whose telephone number is (703)756-1936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights