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 .
Election
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II (claims 70-82) in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged. All non-elected claims have been canceled. Claims 70-82 are pending and subject to examination on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
This application claims priority to Provisional Application No. 61/289,050 (hereinafter “Provisional Application”) filed on 12/22/2009. The disclosure of the Provisional Application fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application:
The ultrasonic transducers are “resonating rod transducers,” as recited in Claim 70;
“ . . . generate a power distribution within the cleaning liquid that is characterized by an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area,” as recited in Claim 70;
25kHz is a “center frequency,” as recited in Claim 71;
“the resonating rod transducers comprise one or two active ultrasonic heads,” as recited in Claim 72;
“the set of heat exchanger tubes is between 2 feet and 150 feet in length and between 6 inches and 12 feet in diameter,” as recited in Claim 74;
“the ultrasonic transducers generate a power density within the liquid container when filled with liquid of between 10-60 Watts/gallon,” as recited in Claim 75;
“each mount comprises a compliant clamp and a mount device that restricts radial movement of the resonant rod,” as recited in Claim 77;
“an aqueous cleaning solution comprising an acid solution,” as recited in Claim 78;
“an aqueous cleaning solution comprising an alkaline solution,” as recited in Claim 79;
“the component-cleaning area comprises less negative interference than in the area of negative interference such that ultrasonic waves retain more ultrasonic energy during propagation,” as recited in Claim 80;
“the component-cleaning area is spaced from the ultrasonic transducers by a distance of at least 5 wavelengths based on the operating frequency of the ultrasonic transducers in the cleaning liquid,” as recited in Claim 81;
“the mounts permit limited axial movement of the ultrasonic transducers,” as recited in Claim 82.
Because the Provisional Application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for independent claim 70 and several dependent claims, Claims 70-82 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the Provisional Application.
This application claims priority to U.S. Application No. 13/518,248 (hereinafter ‘248 Application), which is a 371 national stage application of International Application No. PCT/CA2010/002016 (hereinafter “PCT Application”) having an international filing date of 12/22/2010. The ‘248 Application and the PCT Application fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application:
“ . . . generate a power distribution within the cleaning liquid that is characterized by an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area,” as recited in Claim 70;
“the component-cleaning area comprises less negative interference than in the area of negative interference such that ultrasonic waves retain more ultrasonic energy during propagation,” as recited in Claim 80;
“the component-cleaning area is spaced from the ultrasonic transducers by a distance of at least 5 wavelengths based on the operating frequency of the ultrasonic transducers in the cleaning liquid,” as recited in Claim 81;
“the mounts permit limited axial movement of the ultrasonic transducers,” as recited in Claim 82.
Because the ‘248 Application and the PCT Application fail to provide adequate support or enablement for independent claim 70 and several dependent claims, Claims 70-82 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of the ‘248 Application and the PCT Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 70-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As a preliminary matter, this application was filed on 8/30/2024, but Claims 70-82 are not originally filed claims. Instead, Claims 70-82 were introduced via claim amendments filed on 10/2/2025 and 2/4/2026.
Claim 70 recites in the last paragraph:
operating the ultrasonic transducers to cause the radial propagation of the ultrasonic waves to generate a power distribution within the cleaning liquid that is characterized by an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.
This paragraph contains subject matter that is not sufficiently described to reasonably convey that a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
First, the specification does not use the terms “component-cleaning area” and “area of interference”; does not define those two terms; does not explain how to differentiate one area from the other area; and does not disclose the spatial relationship between the two areas (i.e., the area of interference is “between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area”). Also, the two areas are not illustrated in the drawings.
Second, the specification does not mention or otherwise disclose “a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area”; does not explain what the clause means; does not explain how “power distribution” is measured and compared; does not compare the power distribution of one area with the power distribution of the other area; and does not explain exactly how the ultrasonic transducers are operated to produce “a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.” Also, the power distribution of each area is not illustrated in the drawings.
Claim 80 recites “the component-cleaning area comprises less negative interference than in the area of negative interference such that ultrasonic waves retain more ultrasonic energy during propagation,” which constitutes new matter. The specification does not use the terms “component-cleaning area” and “area of negative interference”; does not define those two terms; does not explain how to differentiate one area from the other area; does not explain how “interference” is actually measured and compared for the two areas; does not explain whether “interference” is a parameter measured for the totality of a given area, or a parameter measured per unit area. Also, “area of negative interference” and “component-cleaning area” are not illustrated in the drawings.
Claim 81 recites “the component-cleaning area is spaced from the ultrasonic transducers by a distance of at least 5 wavelengths based on the operating frequency of the ultrasonic transducers in the cleaning liquid,” which constitutes new matter. The specification does not use the term “component-cleaning area”; does not define the term; does not disclose that “the component-cleaning area is spaced from the ultrasonic transducers by a distance of at least 5 wavelengths.” Also, “component-cleaning area” is not illustrated in the drawings.
Claim 82 recites “the mounts permit limited axial movement of the ultrasonic transducers,” which constitutes new matter. The specification does not use the term “limited axial movement” and does not define the term. Although the specification discloses clamps and gaskets in ¶¶ 0022 and 0038, those paragraphs do not disclose that such clamps and gaskets are permitting “limited axial movement” of the ultrasonic transducers.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on Claim 70.
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 70-82 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.
Claim 70 recites “a liquid enclosure for containing a cleaning liquid” at line 4. It’s unclear whether or not the cleaning liquid is present in the enclosure. If the enclosure actually contains the liquid (i.e., liquid is present), then the word “for” should be deleted.
Claim 70 recites “an axis of the ultrasonic transducers” at line 8-9. It’s unclear what is considered an axis of a plurality of ultrasonic transducers. The specification discloses that each individual rod has an axis (see ¶¶ 0013, 0022), but does not disclose the axis for a plurality of rods. Clarification is requested.
Claim 70 recites “the axis” at line 14. As explained above, an individual rod may have an axis, but it’s unclear what is an axis of a plurality of rods. Clarification is requested.
Claim 70 recites “operating the ultrasonic transducers to cause the radial propagation of the ultrasonic waves to generate a power distribution within the cleaning liquid that is characterized by an area of interference . . .” at lines 15-17. It’s unclear which term—e.g., “ultrasonic transducers,” “radial propagation,” “ultrasonic waves,” “power distribution,” “cleaning liquid”—is being referred to by the word “that.” Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, “that” is interpreted as referring to “power distribution.” It’s recommended that the word “that” be changed to the specific term. For example:
. . . generate a power distribution within the cleaning liquid, the power distribution characterized by an area of interference . . .
Claim 70 recites “an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area” at lines 17-20. It’s unclear which area—area of interference, or component-cleaning area—is being referred to by “which.” Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, “which” is interpreted to refer to “area of interference.” It’s recommended that the word “which” be changed to the specific term. For example:
. . . an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area, in the area of interference ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.
Claim 70 recites the term “component-cleaning area” at line 3, line 18, and line 20. It’s unclear what’s meant by the term. First, the term is not used in the specification and not illustrated in the drawings. Second, although the claim language draws a distinction between “component-cleaning area” and “area of interference,” the specification does not explain how to distinguish between the two areas (and the drawings do not illustrate the two areas), so the metes and bounds of “component-cleaning area” are unclear. Clarification is requested.
Claim 70 recites “an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area” at line 17-18. The metes and bounds of “area of interference” are unclear, because: (1) the term is not used in the specification and not illustrated in the drawings; (2) the specification does not disclose or define the “component-cleaning area,” so by logical extension, an “area of interference” that’s between the transducers and the component-cleaning area is also indefinite; and (3) the specification does not explain how to distinguish between “component-cleaning area” and “area of interference.” Clarification is requested.
Claim 70 recites “a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area” at line 19-20. It’s unclear what this phrase means. The specification does not mention or otherwise disclose “a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area”; does not explain what the clause means; does not compare the power distribution of the “area of interference” with the power distribution of the “component-cleaning area”; and does not explain exactly how the ultrasonic transducers are operated to produce “non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.” Also, the power distribution of each area is not illustrated in the drawings.
Claim 75 recites “wherein the ultrasonic transducers generate a power density within the liquid container when filled with liquid of between 10-60 Watts/gallon.” First, it’s unclear whether “10-60 Watts/gallon” is a unit for the “liquid” or the “power density.” Second, it’s unclear whether or not liquid is actually present in the liquid container, because the word “when” appears to suggest a conditional or contingent limitation (see MPEP § 2111.04.II.) As a suggestion, the claim language may be changed to:
wherein the ultrasonic transducers generate a power density of between 10-60 Watts/gallon within the liquid container [[when]] filled with the cleaning liquid
Claim 77 recites “the resonant rod” at line 2-3. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because Claim 70 recites “resonating rod transducers.” Second, it’s unclear which rod out of the plurality of resonating rod transducers is considered “the” resonant rod. Clarification is requested.
Claim 80 recites “the area of negative interference” at line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because Claim 70 recites “an area of interference.”
Claim 80 recites “wherein the component-cleaning area comprises less negative interference than in the area of negative interference . . . .” The term “less negative interference” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “less negative interference” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not explain what constitutes “component-cleaning area” and what constitutes “area of negative interference”; does not explain how “interference” is actually measured and compared for the two areas; does not explain whether “interference” is a parameter measured for the totality of a given area or per unit area. Clarification is requested.
Claim 80 recites “ . . . such that ultrasonic waves retain more ultrasonic energy during propagation.” The term “more ultrasonic energy” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “more ultrasonic energy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Indeed, it’s unclear which baseline or reference point is used for comparing the retainment of ultrasonic energy. Clarification is requested.
Claim 82 recites “the mounts permit limited axial movement of the ultrasonic transducers. The metes and bounds of the term “limited axial movement” are unclear, because it’s not mentioned or disclosed in the specification. Also, “limited axial movement” is a relative term not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is requested.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on Claim 70.
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 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.
39. Claims 70-77 and 80-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOODSON (US PGPUB 20110132575), in view of OLESEN et al. (US PGPUB 20070006892).
Regarding Claim 70, GOODSON teaches a method of cleaning industrial components (see, e.g., abstract, claims 36-53, 66-71, ¶¶ 0013-17, cleaning heat exchangers and heat exchanger components).
GOODSON’s method comprises the steps of:
introducing an industrial component (placing a heat exchanger or a heat exchanger component into a tank, see abstract, Figs. 1, 5-7, ¶¶ 0013-17, 0057, 0060; see also claims 36-53, 66-71) into a component-cleaning area (e.g., an interior of the tank, see Figs. 1, 4, 5-7) of a liquid container having a sidewall defining a liquid enclosure (see tank in Figs. 1, 4, 5-7) containing a cleaning liquid (the tank is filled with cleaning media, see abstract, ¶¶ 0012-17, 0039, 0050, 0059-60, claims 36-48, 53-55, 71);
operating ultrasonic transducers (see ¶¶ 0013-14, 0059-60, claims 36-48, 53-55) to cause the radial propagation (see arrows in Fig. 1) of ultrasonic waves to generate a power distribution (e.g., distribution of acoustic energy) within the cleaning liquid (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0012, ultrasonic energy travels through the cleaning liquid).
GOODSON teaches the liquid container comprising ultrasonic transducers (piezoelectric components 16 such as Push-Pull transducers 20, see Figs. 1-2, 4-7, ¶¶ 0042, 0045, 0053-55, 0058-59, 0061-64) having an operating frequency between 20 kHz and 35 kHz (see ¶ 0043), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 20 kHz and 30 kHz.” Given this overlap, the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
GOODSON teaches the ultrasonic transducers (piezoelectric components 16, such as Push-Pull transducers 20) are secured to at least a portion of the liquid container (see Figs. 1, 4-7, transducers 20 mounted to tank) at a spacing between adjacent ultrasonic transducers in a radial direction relative to an axis of the ultrasonic transducers (see Figs. 1, 4-7, transducers 20 are arranged in a parallel manner spaced apart from each other).
GOODSON teaches the ultrasonic transducers are resonating rod transducers (see ¶ 0042, the transducers are Push-Pull transducers manufactured by Martin Walter) mounted to an inner surface of the liquid container in a two-dimensional plane (see Figs. 1, 4-7) using mounts (bracket mechanism 42, see Fig. 4, ¶ 0054; see also Figs. 7A-7D) that permit radial propagation of ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic transducers (as explained above, the transducers propagate ultrasonic waves while mounted to the tank), wherein the resonating rod transducers having a circular cross section along the axis (see Figs. 2A, 4-7).
GOODSON does not explicitly teach:
The spacing between adjacent transducers are “between 4 and 12 inches”;
The power distribution is “characterized by an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.”
OLESEN teaches a method of cleaning components using acoustic waves transmitted radially from a plurality of elongated transducers 21 arranged (in a parallel manner) within a liquid container containing a cleaning liquid (see Figs. 6-8, ¶¶ 0042-43), just like the present application. OLESEN teaches that the components are cleaned in a component-cleaning area (“far-field,” see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0042-43). OLESEN teaches that the spacing between adjacent transducers may be 2-10 wavelengths (see ¶ 0042). OLESEN teaches that the spacing between adjacent transducers is a result-effective variable that is related to: (1) the independence of each transducer; (2) the interference between adjacent transducers; and (3) the distance between the component-cleaning area (“far-field”) and the transducers (see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0042-43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange GOODSON’s ultrasonic transducers at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths—which translates to approximately 3 to 29 inches at the frequency range of 20-35 kHz (the exact calculation is explained below)—with reasonable expectation of cleaning the industrial component, for several reasons.
First, a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths has benefits such as keeping each transducer independent, minimizing interference between adjacent transducers, and creating a component-cleaning area (“far-field”) that’s relatively close to the transducers (see OLESEN at ¶¶ 0042-43). Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to arrange GOODSON’s ultrasonic transducers at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths, which translates to approximately 3-29 inches at the frequency range of 20-35 kHz.
Second, because the spacing between adjacent transducers is a result-effective variable, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discovery—through routine experimentation—a workable or optimal spacing. See MPEP § 2144.05.II. In other words, the claimed spacing of “between 4 and 12 inches” is considered obvious because it’s the product of routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.II. (“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”).
Third, it’s already known in the prior art to arrange adjacent transducers at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths (see OLESEN), which translates to approximately 3-29 inches at the frequency range of 20-35 kHz. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of GOODSON and OLESEN: GOODSON’s ultrasonic transducers would be arranged at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths, which is approximately 3-29 inches at the frequency range of 20-35 kHz (as explained above, GOODSON’s transducers operate at 20-35 kHz, which overlaps with the claimed frequency range of 20-30 kHz).
The Examiner notes that the exact wavelength (in inches) may be calculated using the formula λ = v/f, wherein λ is wavelength, v is wave speed, and f is frequency. For example, suppose frequency is 20 kHz and wave speed is 1481 m/s (speed of sound in water): then one wavelength (1λ) is about 2.9 inches, two wavelengths (2λ) is about 5.8 inches, and ten wavelengths (10λ) is about 29.2 inches. In other words, a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths (2-10λ) at 20 kHz may be translated as approximately 5.8-29.2 inches, which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 4 and 12 inches.” As another example, suppose frequency is 35 kHz and wave speed is 1481 m/s (speed of sound in water): then one wavelength (1λ) is about 1.7 inches, two wavelengths (2λ) is about 3.3 inches, and ten wavelengths (10λ) is about 16.7 inches. In other words, a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths (2-10λ) at 35 kHz may be translated as approximately 3.3-16.7 inches, which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 4 and 12 inches.”
Lastly, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN is reasonably expected to generate the claimed result/outcome of “a power distribution . . . characterized by an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.” That’s because the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the same apparatus as recited in the claim (e.g., liquid container having cleaning liquid therein, resonating rod transducers arranged at specific spacing) and the same steps as recited in the claim (e.g., introducing the component into the liquid container, operating the ultrasonic transducers at 20-35 kHz to propagate ultrasonic waves).
Regarding Claim 71, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of claim 70. As explained above, the combination teaches that the ultrasonic transducers are operated to generate frequencies in the 20-35 kHz range, which substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 20-30 kHz. Because the combination teaches the same transducers (e.g., Martin Walter’s Push-Pull transducers) and nearly identical frequency range as this application, the claim limitation of “about a center frequency of 25 kHz” is also considered obvious.
Regarding Claim 72, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of claim 70. The combination teaches the resonating rod transducers comprise one or two active ultrasonic heads (transducer components 22, see GOODSON at Fig. 2A, ¶ 0042).
Regarding Claim 73, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of claim 70. The combination teaches the industrial component is a set of heat exchanger tubes (see GOODSON at abstract, ¶¶ 0013, 0016-17, 0050, 0060, claims 36-52, Figs. 5-7).
Regarding Claim 74, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of claim 73. The combination teaches that the set of heat exchanger tubes may be as large as 24 feet in length (see GOODSON at ¶ 0050), which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 2 feet and 150 feet.” Given this overlap, the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. The combination also teaches that the set of heat exchanger tubes may be 2-6 feet in diameter (see GOODSON at ¶ 0050), which falls within the claimed range of “between 6 inches and 12 feet.”
Regarding Claim 75, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of claim 70. The combination teaches that, when the liquid container is filled with liquid, the ultrasonic transducers generate within the liquid container a power density of 35 Watts/gallon (see GOODSON at ¶ 0051), which falls within the claimed range of “between 10-60 Watts/gallon.”
Regarding Claim 76, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of claim 70. The combination teaches the ultrasonic transducers are mounted vertically to the inner surface of the liquid container (see GOODSON at Figs. 1, 4, 7B, ¶¶ 0048, 0053).
Regarding Claim 77, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of claim 70. The combination teaches each mount (bracket mechanism 42 of GOODSON) comprises a compliant clamp (see GOODSON at Fig. 4, each bracket 45 conforms to the corresponding transducer 20) and a mount device (GOODSON’s plate 421) that restricts radial movement of the resonant rod (see GOODSON at Fig. 4, ¶ 0054).
Regarding Claim 80, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination is reasonably expected to yield the claimed result/outcome of “the component-cleaning area comprises less negative interference than in the area of negative interference such that ultrasonic waves retain more ultrasonic energy during propagation.” As explained above, the combination teaches the same apparatus and steps as recited in Claim 70.
Regarding Claim 81, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination is reasonably expected to yield the claimed result/outcome of “the component-cleaning area is spaced from the ultrasonic transducers by a distance of at least 5 wavelengths based on the operating frequency of the ultrasonic transducers in the cleaning liquid.” As explained above, the combination teaches the same apparatus and steps as recited in Claim 70.
Regarding Claim 82, the combination of GOODSON and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination that the mounts for securing the ultrasonic transducers comprise brackets attached with screws (see GOODSON at Fig. 4, ¶ 0054). Because the screws can be loosened, the combination teaches or reasonably suggests mounts that “permit limited axial movement of the ultrasonic transducers.”
Claims 70-72, 76, and 78-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Martin Walter Push-Pull Transducers Website and Specification Sheet (collectively as “WALTER”), in view of OLESEN et al. (US PGPUB 20070006892).
Regarding Claim 70, WALTER discloses an ultrasonic cleaning apparatus on its website titled “The Martin Walter PUSH-PULL Transducer” (see picture below), retrieved from Wayback Machine (archived on Apr. 12, 2003), available at http://web.archive.org/web/ 20030412084542/http://www.crest-ultrasonics.com/pushpull.html.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Martin Walter website contains two links (see arrows in picture above):
The first link is directed to a Specification Sheet titled “Titanium Alloy Push-Pull Transducers,” retrieved from Wayback Machine (archived on Mar. 16, 2003), available at http://web.archive.org/web/20030316122733/http://www.crest-ultrasonics.com/MW_ AlloySPecs.pdf.
The second link is directed to a page called “Why are they called ‘Push-Pull’ transducers?” retrieved from Wayback Machine (archived on Apr. 9, 2003), available at http://web.archive.org/web/20030409025731/http://www.crest-ultrasonics.com/whypush.html.
Collectively, the Martin Walter website pages and Specification Sheet are referred to as the WALTER reference, which is enclosed with this Office Action.
WALTER discloses a figure of the ultrasonic cleaning apparatus (see pg. 4). The figure, along with annotations, is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
711
1062
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WALTER’s ultrasonic cleaning apparatus comprises a liquid container having a sidewall defining a liquid enclosure for containing a cleaning liquid (see annotated figure above), the liquid container comprising ultrasonic transducers (see annotated figure) having an operating frequency of 25 or 30 kHz (see pg. 4), which fall within the recited range of “between 20 kHz and 30 kHz.” WALTER teaches that the ultrasonic transducers are secured to at least a portion of the liquid container (see annotated figure) at a spacing of 3.25 inches between adjacent ultrasonic transducers (see pg. 5) in a radial direction relative to an axis of the ultrasonic transducers (see pg. 5; see annotated figure).
WALTER teaches that the ultrasonic transducers are resonating rod transducers. See pg. 3 (“the pushing and pulling action causes the titanium rod to resonate at the frequency of operation”); see also the specification of this application at ¶ 0013 (resonating rod transducers are known in the prior art, citing a U.S. patent issued to Martin Walter et al.).
WALTER teaches that the ultrasonic transducers are mounted to an inner surface of the liquid container in a two-dimensional plane using mounts (see pg. 2; see figure below) that permit radial propagation of ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic transducers (see pg. 3, each transducer emits ultrasonic waves in the radial direction). WALTER teaches that the resonating rod transducers having a circular cross section along the axis (see pg. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
263
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
WALTER teaches a method of cleaning industrial components using the ultrasonic cleaning apparatus (see pg. 5, “Applications”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that, in order to use WALTER’s ultrasonic cleaning apparatus, an industrial component would be introduced into a component-cleaning area of WALTER’s liquid container, and WALTER’s ultrasonic transducers would be operated (e.g., powered on) to cause the radial propagation of the ultrasonic waves to generate a power distribution (e.g., distribution of acoustic energy) within the cleaning liquid. This is because: ultrasonic cleaning typically involves immersing a component in a cleaning liquid in which acoustic waves propagate from the acoustic transducers (see, e.g., OLESEN at ¶¶ 0007, 0042, Fig. 6); WALTER teaches that the cleaning liquid in the container may be solvents, alkaline solutions, and acidic solutions (see pg. 1 & 5), which means or suggests the component would be immersed in the cleaning liquid to chemically interact with the component with the cleaning liquid.
WALTER does not explicitly teach that:
The spacing between adjacent ultrasonic transducers is “between 4 and 12 inches”;
The power distribution is “characterized by an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.”
OLESEN teaches a method of cleaning components using acoustic waves transmitted radially from a plurality of elongated transducers 21 arranged (in a parallel manner) within a liquid container containing a cleaning liquid (see Figs. 6-8, ¶¶ 0042-43), just like the present application. OLESEN teaches that the components are cleaned in a component-cleaning area (“far-field,” see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0042-43). OLESEN teaches that the spacing between adjacent transducers may be 2-10 wavelengths (see ¶ 0042). OLESEN teaches that the spacing between adjacent transducers is a result-effective variable that is related to: (1) the independence of each transducer; (2) the interference between adjacent transducers; and (3) the distance between the component-cleaning area (“far-field”) and the transducers (see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0042-43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange WALTER’s ultrasonic transducers at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths—which translates to approximately 4-24 inches at the frequency range of 20-30 kHz (see specification of this application at ¶ 0014)—with reasonable expectation of cleaning the industrial component, for several reasons.
First, a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths has benefits such as keeping each transducer independent, minimizing interference between adjacent transducers, and creating a component-cleaning area (“far-field”) that’s relatively close to the transducers (see OLESEN at ¶¶ 0042-43). Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to arrange WALTER’s ultrasonic transducers at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths, which translates to approximately 4-24 inches at the frequency range of 20-30 kHz.
Second, because the spacing between adjacent transducers is a result-effective variable, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to discovery—through routine experimentation—a workable or optimal spacing. See MPEP § 2144.05.II. In other words, the claimed spacing of “between 4 and 12 inches” is considered obvious because it’s the product of routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.II. (“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”).
Third, it’s already known in the prior art to arrange adjacent transducers at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths (see OLESEN), which translates to approximately 4-24 inches at the frequency range of 20-30 kHz. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of WALTER and OLESEN: WALTER’s ultrasonic transducers would be arranged at a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths, which is approximately 4-24 inches at the frequency range of 20-30 kHz (as explained above, WALTER’s transducers operate at 25 kHz or 30 kHz, which fall within the frequency range of 20-30 kHz).
The Examiner notes that the exact wavelength (in inches) may be calculated using the formula λ = v/f, wherein λ is wavelength, v is wave speed, and f is frequency. For example, suppose frequency is 25 kHz and wave speed is 1481 m/s (speed of sound in water): then one wavelength (1λ) is about 2.3 inches, two wavelengths (2λ) is about 4.7 inches, and ten wavelengths (10λ) is about 23.3 inches. In other words, a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths (2-10λ) at 25 kHz may be translated as approximately 4.7-23.3 inches, which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 4 and 12 inches.” As another example, suppose frequency is 30 kHz and wave speed is 1481 m/s (speed of sound in water): then one wavelength (1λ) is about 1.9 inches, two wavelengths (2λ) is about 3.9 inches, and ten wavelengths (10λ) is about 19.4 inches. In other words, a spacing of 2-10 wavelengths (2-10λ) at 30 kHz may be translated as approximately 3.9-19.4 inches, which overlaps with the claimed range of “between 4 and 12 inches.”
Lastly, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN is reasonably expected to generate the claimed result/outcome of “a power distribution . . . characterized by an area of interference between the ultrasonic transducers and the component-cleaning area in which ultrasonic waves from adjacent ultrasonic transducers interfere negatively to produce a non-uniform power distribution relative to the component-cleaning area.” That’s because the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the same apparatus as recited in the claim (e.g., liquid container having cleaning liquid therein, resonating rod transducers arranged at specific spacing) and the same steps as recited in the claim (e.g., introducing the component into the liquid container, operating the ultrasonic transducers at 20-30 kHz to propagate ultrasonic waves).
Regarding Claim 71, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination teaches the ultrasonic transducers are operated to generate frequencies about a center frequency of 25 kHz (see WALTER at pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 72, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination teaches the resonating rod transducers comprise one or two active ultrasonic heads (see WALTER at pg. 3).
Regarding Claim 76, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination teaches the ultrasonic transducers are mounted vertically to the inner surface of the liquid container (see WALTER at pg. 2 & 4).
Regarding Claim 78, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination teaches the liquid container comprises an aqueous cleaning solution comprising an acid solution (see WALTER at pg. 1 & 5, “aqueous acid solutions”).
Regarding Claim 79, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination teaches the liquid container comprises an aqueous cleaning solution comprising an alkaline solution (see WALTER at pg. 1 & 5, “aqueous alkaline solutions”).
Regarding Claim 80, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination is reasonably expected to yield the claimed result/outcome of “the component-cleaning area comprises less negative interference than in the area of negative interference such that ultrasonic waves retain more ultrasonic energy during propagation.” As explained above, the combination teaches the same apparatus and steps as recited in Claim 70.
Regarding Claim 81, the combination of WALTER and OLESEN teaches the method of Claim 70. The combination is reasonably expected to yield the claimed result/outcome of “the component-cleaning area is spaced from the ultrasonic transducers by a distance of at least 5 wavelengths based on the operating frequency of the ultrasonic transducers in the cleaning liquid.” As explained above, the combination teaches the same apparatus and steps as recited in Claim 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714