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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 8/12/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-17, 20-39 are pending. Claims 1-2, 6, 15-17, 30, 31, 34-39 have been amended. Claims 3-4, 7-14, 20-29, 32-33 remain withdrawn. Claim 40 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/26 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wang et al. (CN218726674U).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5, 6, 17, 30, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN218726674U).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 17, 30, 31, Wang et al. teaches an ultrasonic indicating device (see abstract) comprising: a container 1 capable of comprising a liquid composition comprising: water, an oil, a water insoluble organic liquid, wherein said water insoluble organic liquid comprises an emulsion aid and an additive; wherein said composition does not form an emulsion upon mechanical shaking but forms an emulsion upon ultrasonification (see abstract, figure 1, page 4 of the translation). Wang et al. does not explicitly teach that the liquid composition comprised in the container comprises: water, an oil, a water insoluble organic liquid, wherein said water insoluble organic liquid comprises an emulsion aid and an additive; wherein said composition does not form an emulsion upon mechanical shaking but forms an emulsion upon ultrasonification. However, since the container as taught by Wang et al. is capable of containing a liquid composition all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art and the particular choice of liquid composition is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 15, 16 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN218726674U) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Pfeifer (US20020195120).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Wang et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang et al. does not teach an agitation aid. Pfeifer teaches a device for testing an ultrasonic cleaning system (see abstract) and that an agitation aid comprising glass beads 5 (reads on claim 16) may be used in order to promote reliable and effective cavitation and allow for reliable and reproducible testing of cleaning efficiency (see figure 2, paragraphs [0007], [0018]-[0022]). Since both Wang et al. and Pfeifer teach systems for testing ultrasonic cleaning devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an agitation aid may be included in the system by Wang et al. so as to provide reliable and effective cavitation allowing reliable and reproducible testing of cleaning efficiency, as shown to be known and conventional by Pfeifer.
Regarding claims 34-36, Wang et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang et al. also teaches in figures 2, 3 and page 4 of the translation a seal 3 (reads on claim 35) (also reads on septum of claim 36). Wang et al. does not teach that the container is selected from a glass container and a plastic container. Pfeifer teaches in paragraph [0016] that the container may be selected from a transparent glass container and a plastic container so as to allow the effect on the fluid to be visible from the outside. Since both Wang et al. and Pfeifer teach systems for testing ultrasonic cleaning devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the container in the system by Wang et al. may be selected from a glass container and a plastic container so as to allow the effect on the fluid to be visible from the outside, as shown to be known and conventional by Pfeifer.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN218726674U) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Moncayo (US20150329225).
Regarding claims 37-39, Wang et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang et al. does not teach that the container comprises a readable indicia. Moncayo teaches a container cleaning system (see abstract) and that the container may comprise machine readable indicia (reads on claims 37 and 38) such as a bar code (reads on claim 39) so as to provide a unique identifier therefor (see paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0083]). Since Wang et al. teaches a container used in ultrasonic cleaning and Moncayo teaches a container cleaning system it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the container in the system by Wang et al. may include a readable indicia so as to provide a unique identifier for the container, as shown to be known and conventional by Moncayo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights