DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) is being referred to “movement mechanism’ (see par. [0067] of the PG Pub. version of the specification) and “motion mechanism” (see par. [0070] of the Pg. Pub. version of the specification). Throughout the specification, the mechanism 400 for directing ultrasonic treatment being referred to as “movement mechanism” and “motion mechanism”. The examiner suggests to amend the specification to recite “movement mechanism” from “motion mechanism” to be consistent with the specification and figure 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,430 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,430 are directed to ultrasound treatment device comprising a housing, ultrasonic element, control unit, a graphical user interface, one or more processors, a hand wand comprising shaft, motor, communication interface cable, and a circuit board, interchangeable transducer module, but copending Application No. 19/025,430 fails to explicitly state that the housing is sealed with an acoustic fluid. Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device with sealed housing comprising acoustic fluid (see par. [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of sealed housing with acoustic fluid in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,430, as taught by Zanelli, to provide coupling medium for the ultrasound transmission for better treatment.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,676 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,676 are directed to ultrasound treatment device comprising a housing, ultrasonic element, control unit, a graphical user interface, one or more processors, a hand wand comprising motor, communication interface cable, and a circuit, interchangeable transducer module but copending Application No. 19/025,676 fails to explicitly state that the housing is sealed. Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device with sealed housing (see par. [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of sealed housing in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,676, as taught by Zanelli, to provide a leak free housing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,353 in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,353 are both directed to an ultrasound treatment system with a sealed housing, ultrasonic element, control unit, a graphical user interface, one or more processors, a hand wand comprising latch, motor, communication interface cable, and a circuit board, interchangeable transducer module, but copending Application No. 19/025,353 fails to explicitly state a graphical user interface comprising a touch screen display.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the user interface is a touch screen display (see par. [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the user interface is a touch screen display, in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,353, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more Efficient Interaction.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 2, 6, 7-8, 10, 11 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitations “a depth” and “a skin surface” in line 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the depth and skin surface are same depth and skin surface that is already recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitations “a sealed housing comprising an acoustically transparent window” in line 3 and “an acoustic fluid” in line 5 are indefinite because it is unclear if this sealed housing comprising an acoustically transparent window and acoustic fluid are same sealed housing, acoustically transparent window and acoustic fluid that are already recited in claim 1 or different.
Furthermore for claim 6, the claim limitation “a depth” in line 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if this depth is the same depth that is already recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitations “sealed housing” in line 2, “treatment frequency” in line 5, and “a depth” in line 7 are indefinite because it is unclear if this sealed housing, treatment frequency and depth are same sealed housing, treatment frequency and depth that are already recited in claim 1 or different.
Claim 8 is rejected as it depends from rejected claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “a depth” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the depth is the same depth that is already recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “a depth” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the depth is the same depth that is already recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt).
Regarding claim 1, Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device. Zanelli shows a device for ultrasound treatment (see fig. 2; ), comprising: a control unit (see par. [0025]) comprising: a graphical user interface comprising a display (see par. [0025]), the graphical user interface configured to display at least one operating condition such as treatment parameters (see fig. 3 and par. [0025]), one or more processor configured to execute software (see fig. 6; par. [0027])), and a power supply and a driver circuit configured to provide power (see fig. 6; par. [0025])); a hand wand (see par. [0024]; fig. 4-5) comprising: one or more button or switch configured to be operated by a user (see par. [0025]); a motor (see par. [0013], [0015], [0024]), a shaft (see fig. 5), and a communication interface cable to facilitate communication between the hand wand and the control unit (see fig. 5 and 6); a transducer module comprising: a sealed housing configured for comprising an acoustic fluid (see par. [0024]; fig. 5) and an acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024]; fig. 5), an ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface with a treatment frequency (see par. [0024]; 106 in fig. 5), and wherein the motor is configured to move the ultrasonic piezoelectric element to direct an ultrasonic treatment in a sequence of thermal lesions in a tissue (see [0003], [0023], [0026]).
But, Zanelli fails to explicitly state that the user interface is a touch screen display, the hand wand comprising a latch, that the transducer module is removable (see par. [0038]), the motor is configured to move the shaft and the shaft is configured to move the ultrasonic piezoelectric element, wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the latch of the hand wand, and wherein the removable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via operation of the latch.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the user interface is a touch screen display (see par. [0056]), the hand wand comprising a latch (see fig. 6A), that the transducer module is removable (see par. [0038]), the motor is configured to move the shaft and the shaft is configured to move the ultrasonic piezoelectric element (see par. [0061], [0063]), wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the latch of the hand wand (see par. [0038] and fig. 6A), and wherein the removable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via operation of the latch (see par. [0038] and fig. 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the user interface is a touch screen display, the hand wand comprising a latch, that the transducer module is removable, the motor is configured to move the shaft and the shaft is configured to move the ultrasonic piezoelectric element, wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the latch of the hand wand, and wherein the removable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via operation of the latch in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more Efficient Interaction, and be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module.
Regarding claim 2, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to configured to focus ultrasound along a linear thermal lesion path at a depth below a skin surface (see par. [0011] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the driver circuit comprises a radio frequency (RF) driver circuit (see fig. 6; par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute software to provide acoustic coupling detection (see par. [0022], [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows transducer module comprising: a sealed housing comprising an acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024]; fig. 5), wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured for acoustic coupling to the acoustically transparent window via an acoustic liquid in the sealed housing (see par. [0024]; fig. 5), wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment in at least one of the group consisting of: a dermis tissue (see par. [0011], [0020]), and Bockenstedt teaches removable ultrasound transducer (see par. [0038]), and an interface port adapted to allow interfacing from the hand wand to the removable transducer module without affecting integrity of the sealed housing (see fig. 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of an interface port adapted to allow interfacing from the hand wand to the removable transducer module without affecting integrity of the sealed housing in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and avoid leaking of the ultrasound coupling medium.
Regarding claim 9, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches a magnetic coupling (see par. [0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment in dermis tissue (see par. [0011], [0020]).
Regarding claim 12: Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device. Zanelli shows an ultrasound system, comprising (see fig. 2; ), comprising: a control unit (see par. [0025]) comprising: a graphical user interface comprising a display (see par. [0025]), the graphical user interface configured to display at least one operating condition (see fig. 3 and par. [0025]), one or more processor configured to execute software (see fig. 6; par. [0027])), and a power supply and a driver circuit configured to provide power (see fig. 6; par. [0025])); a hand wand (see par. [0024]; fig. 4-5) comprising: one or more button or switch configured to be operated by a user (see par. [0025]); a motor (see par. [0013], [0015], [0024]), and a communication interface cable to facilitate communication between the hand wand and the control unit (see fig. 5 and 6); a transducer module comprising an ultrasonic piezoelectric element (see par. [0024]; 106 in fig. 5), and wherein the motor in the hand wand is configured to linearly move the ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element in the transducer module (see [0003], [0023], [0026] and fig. 5).
But, Zanelli fails to explicitly state that the transducer module is removable, wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the hand wand such that the removable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the transducer module is removable (see par. [0038]), wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the hand wand such that the removable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand (see par. [0038] and fig. 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of that the transducer module is removable, wherein the removable transducer module is configured to removably couple with the hand wand such that the removable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module.
Regarding claim 13, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element is configured to configured to focus ultrasound along a linear thermal lesion path at a depth below a skin surface (see par. [0011] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the driver circuit comprises a radio frequency (RF) driver circuit (see fig. 6; par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute software to provide acoustic coupling detection (see par. [0022], [0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches a magnetic coupling (see par. [0067]).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2005/0033201; hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state a foot switch electrically connected to the control unit.
Takahashi discloses ultrasound surgical system and teaches state a foot switch electrically connected to the control unit configured for operation of removable transducer module (fig. and par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a foot switch electrically connected to the control unit in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Takahashi, to provide a easy way to control the ultrasound module while the physician can use both hands to perform treatment.
Claims 7-8, 10, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Gliklich et al. (US 2007/0032784; hereinafter Gliklich).
Regarding claim 7, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows that the transducer module comprising: a sealed housing (see par. [0024]); the ultrasonic piezoelectric element being configured to focus ultrasound with a treatment frequency (see par. [0011]), wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment in at least one of the group consisting of: a dermis tissue (see par. [0011], [0020]); and Bockenstedt teaches a circuit board configured for electrical connection to a pin connector operably coupled to the hand wand (see par. [0041], [0048], [0049], [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a circuit board configured for electrical connection to a pin connector operably coupled to the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide electronic communication.
But, Zanelli and Bockenstedt fail to explicitly state that the treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz (see par. [0016], [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able to safely treat layers beneath the dermal layer.
Regarding claim 8, Zanelli, Bockenstedt and Gliklich disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the pin connector comprises a spring pin connector (see par. [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment of superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) tissue.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment of superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) tissue (see par. [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment of superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) tissue in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able create control lesion to affect movement of muscle which reduce signs of aging.
Regarding claim 17, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the transducer module comprises: a sealed housing comprising an acoustic liquid (see par. [0024]) and an acoustically transparent window (see fig. 5), the ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element being configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface with a treatment frequency (see par. [0011]), wherein the ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window via the acoustic liquid in the sealed housing (see fig. 5), and Bockenstedt teaches a circuit board configured for electrical connection to a pin connector operably coupled to the hand wand (see par. [0041], [0048], [0049], [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a circuit board configured for electrical connection to a pin connector operably coupled to the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide electronic communication.
But, Zanelli and Bockenstedt fail to explicitly state that the treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz (see par. [0016], [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able to safely treat layers beneath the dermal layer.
Regarding claim 18, Zanelli, Bockenstedt and Gliklich disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the pin connector comprises a spring pin connector (see par. [0041]).
Regarding claim 20, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment of superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) tissue.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment of superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) tissue (see par. [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the ultrasonic piezoelectric element is configured to focus ultrasound energy at a depth for treatment of superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) tissue in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able create control lesion to affect movement of muscle which reduce signs of aging.
Response to Arguments
The previous double patent rejections over U.S. Patent No. 10,537,304, U.S. Patent No. 11,123,039, U.S. Patent No. 11,723,622, U.S. Patent No. 12,102,473, and copending Application No. 19/025,251 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the clams.
The previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f) for claim element “movement mechanism” has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
The examiner has maintained the previous object to specification the mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) is being referred to “movement mechanism’ (see par. [0067] of the PG Pub. version of the specification) and “motion mechanism” (see par. [0070] of the Pg. Pub. version of the specification). Throughout the specification, the mechanism 400 for directing ultrasonic treatment being referred to as “movement mechanism” and “motion mechanism”. The Applicant states on page 7 (see response filed on 02/05/2026) that claim 1 has been amended to remove the claim element “movement mechanism” which invoke 35 USC 112 (f) and therefore the specification objection should be withdrawn, however, the objection to specification was not related to claim interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f) or claim objection. The objection to specification because the specification refers mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) as “movement mechanism’ and “motion mechanism”, and is not consistent through out the specification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior Office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Bockenstedt to address independent claims 1 and 12.
Conclusion
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 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, Anne M 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights