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 .
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.
Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabre et al. [US2019/0176262, of record, previously cited, “Gabre”] in view of Hauck [US2018/0161914, of record, previously cited, “Hauck”].
Gabre discloses ultrasonic system, comprising: an ultrasonic power supply (104) (paragraph 0018); an ultrasonic stack (102) connected to the ultrasonic power supply (paragraph 0017); an actuator (120) configured to movably support the ultrasonic stack and configured to press the ultrasonic stack against a work piece at a load (paragraph 0019); and a controller (114) for operating the actuator to apply a load on the ultrasonic stack against a workpiece at startup (paragraph 0019), wherein the controller has a memory (116) that is capable of storing scanned resonance and phase data for the ultrasonic system at different operating loads and at start-up of the ultrasonic stack the controller determines a resonance and phase from the memory for operation of the ultrasonic power supply according to the corresponding load applied to the workpiece (paragraph 0018). Gabre discloses a controller for operating the power supply at start up but does not explicitly disclose a stored resonance for the load and phase for the load applied.
Hauck discloses an ultrasonic system. Hauck discloses an ultrasonic power supply controlled by a controller based on set weld parameters (paragraph 0011), and Hauck discloses the parameters include resonant frequency and phase (paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Gabre to include stored resonance and phase parameters as taught by Hauck in order to improve the control and the precision of the system.
With respect to claim 19, Gabre discloses all of the structure required by the system for the load applied to the workpiece to be considered predetermined.
With respect to claim 20, Gabre discloses the ultrasonic stack includes a converter (106) and a horn (110) (paragraph 0017).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabre, Hauck, and further in view of Ou et al. [US2021/0346977, of record, previously cited, “Ou”].
Gabre as modified discloses ultrasonic system. Applicant is referred to paragraph 3 for a detailed discussion of Gabre as modified. Gabre fails to disclose a load sensor.
Ou discloses an ultrasonic system including a load sensor for sensing a load applied to the workpiece by the ultrasonic stack (paragraph 0018, 0020, 0053, 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Gabre by including a load sensor as taught by Ou in order to improve the operation of the system and resulting quality of the weld formed by the ultrasonic system.
With respect to claim 18, the combined teachings of Gabre, Hauck and Ou would include all of the structure required of a controller that receives a load signal from the load sensor and activates the ultrasonic stack at a stored resonance and phase at start-up that corresponds to the load signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 are directed toward Hauck and Gabre’s disclosed methods, and asserts the prior art does not disclose operating the system in the same manner as recited in the claim. It is noted, claim 15 is directed toward a system. In a system claim the method and manner of operation can be described to help describe the required structure of the system, but the prior art is not required to teach the same method and manner of operation. The cited prior art discloses all of the required structure of the claim. Differences in the method, manner of operation, or intended use of the system do not further distinguish the required structure from the prior art. The controller and memory as disclosed by Hauck and Gabre would be capable of operating in the same manner disclosed in the claim.
With respect to claim 17, applicant asserts Ou does not disclose a load sensor for sensing a load applied to the workpiece by the ultrasonic state, and asserts Ou is intended to measure a load that is independent of the ultrasonic stack. Ou discloses a capability of the load cell sensor in paragraph 0018, but Ou also discloses the sensor reports the load on the horn of the stack assembly (paragraph 0057). Ou discloses a sensor and the sensor is capable of sensing a load applied to the workpiece by the ultrasonic stack, which would be the same as the load on the horn of the ultrasonic stack.
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 DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/DANIEL MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights