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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply filed 1/27/2026 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. The objection to the drawings have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Webber does not disclose repositioning at least the selected ultrasonic probe in the absence of an ultrasonic event by at least one or the remaining ultrasonic probes with a lower sound energy than a predetermined energy and repeating steps b) to e) until the at least one of the remaining ultrasound probes detects an ultrasonic event with at least the predetermined energy. Applicant has argued that the claimed element is not present in the cited prior art.
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law (MPEP2144 (I)). Webber teaches that the transducers are positioned at locations around the hull or structure so as to maximize transmission effects, and that the data from the one or more receivers enables optimum placement of the transducers (pg. 10, ll. 15-17). In finding said optimal placement of the ultrasonic probe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reposition the ultrasonic probe under the conditions as claimed, to achieve the optimal placement based on the probe data, as suggested by Webber.
Applicant has argued that there is no motivation for combining Haeggstrom with Webber, because Haeggstrom is directed to cleaning a heat exchanger, while Webber is directed to preventing marine organisms from growing. However, Webber teaches that the method can be applied to fouled aquatic structures that can conduct ultrasonic vibrations (pg. 1, ll. 8-10). Haeggstrom teaches that it is known to apply a similar method of ultrasonic cleaning to devices such as heat exchangers (see abstract). Both references are reasonably pertinent as they are both directed to solving the problem of removing fouling from a surface with ultrasound. Since a cooling tower is a type of heat exchanger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method to a cooling tower with a reasonable expectation of removing the deposits in view of Webber and Haeggstrom.
As applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber et al. (WO 2012/085630).
Regarding Claim 1: Webber teaches a method for keeping a surface of a body susceptible to deposits clear or for removing deposits adhering to the surface of the body (see abstract), comprising the steps of:
a) attaching a predetermined plurality of ultrasonic probes to predetermined positions of the body having at least one surface susceptible to or having deposits (pg. 10, ll. 8-18);
b) subjecting the body to ultrasound by a single ultrasonic probe selected from the predetermined plurality of ultrasonic probes (pg. 16, ll. 6-10);
c) detecting the ultrasound emitted by the one ultrasonic probe by the remaining ultrasonic probes of the plurality of ultrasonic probes as an ultrasonic event (pg. 16, ll. 10-13);
d) repeating steps b) and c) wherein the body is exposed to ultrasound by a further ultrasonic probe determined as a selected ultrasonic probe until each ultrasonic probe of the plurality of ultrasonic probes has exposed the body to ultrasound (pg. 16, ll. 18);
g) exposing the body to ultrasound by all ultrasonic probes attached to the body (pg. 16, ll. 17-18)
Webber does not expressly disclose e) repositioning at least the selected ultrasonic probe in the absence of an ultrasonic event expected for at least one of the remaining ultrasonic probes or in the event of an ultrasonic event by at least one of the remaining ultrasonic probes with a lower sound energy than a predetermined energy and f) repeating steps b) to e) until the at least one of the remaining ultrasound probes detects an ultrasonic event with at least the predetermined sound energy. However, Webber teaches monitoring the probes to determine the effectiveness of the transducer position and optimum placement (pg. 10, ll. 15-18). 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 method of Webber by repositioning the ultrasonic probe in the absence of an expected ultrasonic event or if a lower sound energy occurred, in order to provide optimal placement of the transducer as suggested by Webber.
Regarding Claim 2: Webber further teaches that the deposits are inorganic deposits, organic deposits, or deposits forming a biofilm (pg. 1, ll. 14-19).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10: Webber teaches the elements of Claims 1 or 2 as discussed above. Webber does not expressly disclose that the repositioning comprises reattaching the selected ultrasonic probe to the same predetermined position. However, 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 method of Webber by reattaching the selected ultrasonic probe to the same position in order to ensure a more secure attachment of the probe to the surface.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 17: Webber teaches the elements of Claims 1, 2, or 3 as discussed above. Webber does not expressly disclose that the repositioning comprises reattaching the ultrasound probe for which the expected ultrasound event has failed to occur. However, Webber teaches monitoring the probes to determine the effectiveness of the transducer position and optimum placement (pg. 10, ll. 15-18). 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 method of Webber by reattaching the probe for which the ultrasound event failed to occur in order to mitigate attachment issues causing emission failures.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 18: Webber teaches the elements of Claim 1, 2 , or 4 as discussed above. Webber does not expressly disclose repositioning comprises replacing a defective ultrasound probe with an intact ultrasound probe. However, Webber teaches failing components can be replaced if necessary (pg. 13, ll. 11-13). 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 method of Webber by replacing a defective ultrasound probe with an intact ultrasound probe in the repositioning step in order to enhance the cleaning efficiency by utilizing working components, as suggested by Webber.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19: Webber teaches the elements of Claims 1, 2, or 5 as discussed above. Webber does not expressly disclose that the repositioning step is performed wherein the at least one of the remaining ultrasonic probes, which detects a sound event with a lower sound energy than a predetermined sound energy, is arranged directly adjacent to the selected ultrasonic probe. However, Webber teaches that the data received from the transducers is monitored to ensure optimum placement and positioning. 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 method of Webber by repositioning a remaining probe adjacent to the selected probe when a sound event with lower sound energy occurs in order to optimize the detection position according to the received data, as suggested by Webber.
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20: Webber teaches the elements of Claims 1, 2, or 6 Webber further teaches that wherein the body is a ship's hull, wherein the plurality of ultrasonic probes are fixed to the inside of the ship's hull for keeping the outer surface of the ship's hull, which is susceptible to deposits, clear of deposits or for removing deposits adhering to the outer surface of the ship's hull (pg. 11, ll. 1-2).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15: Webber teaches the elements of Claim 1 or 2 as discussed above. Webber further teaches that the body is a liquid-conducting pipes (pg. 2, ll. 1-8).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber et al. (WO 2012/085630) and further in view of Haeggstrom et al. (WO 2017/194839).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16: Webber teaches the elements of Claims 8 or 15 as discussed above. Webber does not expressly disclose that said body is a cooling tower. Webber teaches that the method can be applied to fouled aquatic structures that can conduct ultrasonic vibrations (pg. 1, ll. 8-10). Haeggstrom teaches that it is known to apply a similar method of ultrasonic cleaning to devices such as heat exchangers (see abstract). As a cooling tower is a type of heat exchanger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method to a cooling tower with a reasonable expectation of removing the deposits in view of Webber and Haeggstrom.
Conclusion
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 NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights