DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 3-9 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 3 recites the limitation "the sound pressure value that is the smallest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites that the determiner of the controller “sets the plurality of sound pressures sensor as a single lower sound pressure sensor with the sound pressure value that is the smallest and as a higher sound pressure sensor except the lower sound pressure sensor”. This control routine only separates the “plurality” of sensors into two sensors – namely, a “single lower sound pressure sensor” and a “higher sound pressure sensor”. It is thus not clear how such a control routine could operate in a situation where the “plurality” of sensors includes three or more sensors instead of only two.
With regard to claim 5, the end of claim 5 recites “of two higher sound pressure sensors with greater sound pressure values among the higher sound pressure sensors”. It is not clear what this means. Perhaps applicant made a typographical mistake.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2022096264 by Futamata.
With regard to claim 1, Futamata teaches a detector for detecting sound pressure of a cleaning liquid in an ultrasonic cleaning device that comprises a cleaning tank 12 (in Figure 1), a transducer (one of items 22 in Figure 1) configured to irradiate an ultrasonic wave to the cleaning tank, and an oscillator (shown as item 16 in Figure 1) configured to apply a drive signal to the transducer for generating the ultrasonic wave (Abstract; pages 3-5 of the translation). The detector comprises a housing 32 (reads on support body) immersed in the cleaning liquid (pages 3-5 of the translation). The detector comprises a sound pressure sensor 34 in a non-wetted part of the housing 32 (Abstract; pages 3-5 of the translation).
Futamata does not teach having a plurality of pressure sensors inside the housing. However, Futamata does teach an embodiment (show in Figure 10) wherein the housing (numbered as 332 in Figure 10) is sized to contain three vertically arranged pressure sensors (page 10 of translation). With regard to the embodiment illustrated in Figure 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Futamata by having the housing 32 sized to contain 3 vertically arranged sound pressure sensors, wherein each of the sound pressure sensors functions in the same manner as the sound pressure sensor 34 in Figure 1. In the embodiment of Futamata, the purpose of the sound pressure sensor 34 is to measure the sound pressure in the cleaning bath, and in the art of measuring, it is well known to take more than one measurement, as such measurement duplication can help ensure that a more accurate measurement is reliably attained; for example, averaging three (for example) different measurements from three sensors can lead to more accuracy instead of simply relying on a single sensor. The motivation for modifying the embodiment of Figure 1 to comprise three sound pressure sensors would simply be to allow three different measurements to more reliably attain an accurate read on the cleaning tank sound pressure than could a single sound pressure sensor. In the embodiment of Figure 10, Futamata certainly shows that the housing (numbered as 332 in Figure 10) can be sized to contain three vertically arranged pressure sensors.
In this modified apparatus of Futamata, the lowermost sound pressure sensor of the three sensor and the uppermost sound pressure sensor of the three sensors can be considered to correspond to applicant’s plurality of sound pressure sensors, and these uppermost and lowermost sensors are considered to be placed at equal intervals about a horizontal axis spaced equally between them. The modified apparatus of Futamata does not teach that this horizonal axis is also a central axis of the housing. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing such that its shape is such that a central axis of the housing is also the same axis of the above-mentioned horizontal axis between the uppermost and lowermost sensors. The motivation for having the housing shaped in such a manner is that the housing could successfully perform its role of housing the sensors while having such a shape.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2022096264 by Futamata.
With regard to claim 2, Futamata teaches an ultrasonic cleaning device (illustrated in Figure 1) comprising a detector for detecting sound pressure of a cleaning liquid (Abstract; pages 3-5 of the translation). The ultrasonic cleaning device comprises a cleaning tank 12 (in Figure 1), a transducer (one of items 22 in Figure 1) configured to irradiate an ultrasonic wave to the cleaning tank, and an oscillator (shown as item 16 in Figure 1) configured to apply a drive signal to the transducer for generating the ultrasonic wave (Abstract; pages 3-5 of the translation). The detector comprises a housing 32 (reads on support body) immersed in the cleaning liquid (pages 3-5 of the translation). The detector comprises a sound pressure sensor 34 in a non-wetted part of the housing 32 (Abstract; pages 3-5 of the translation). The sound pressure sensor can be considered to be located in a rear end part of the housing because the rightmost wall of the housing may be considered a front end of the housing. Futamata’s apparatus comprises a controller 18 configured to receive the measurement signal from the sound pressure sensor 34.
Futamata does not teach having a plurality of pressure sensors inside the housing. However, Futamata does teach an embodiment (show in Figure 10) wherein the housing (numbered as 332 in Figure 10) is sized to contain three vertically arranged pressure sensors (page 10 of translation). With regard to the embodiment illustrated in Figure 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Futamata by having the housing 32 sized to contain 3 vertically arranged sound pressure sensors, wherein each of the sound pressure sensors functions in the same manner as the sound pressure sensor 34 in Figure 1. In the embodiment of Futamata, the purpose of the sound pressure sensor 34 is to measure the sound pressure in the cleaning bath, and in the art of measuring, it is well known to take more than one measurement, as such measurement duplication can help ensure that a more accurate measurement is reliably attained; for example, averaging three (for example) different measurements from three sensors can lead to more accuracy instead of simply relying on a single sensor. The motivation for modifying the embodiment of Figure 1 to comprise three sound pressure sensors would simply be to allow three different measurements to more reliably attain an accurate read on the cleaning tank sound pressure than could a single sound pressure sensor. In the embodiment of Figure 10, Futamata certainly shows that the housing (numbered as 332 in Figure 10) can be sized to contain three vertically arranged pressure sensors.
In this modified apparatus of Futamata, the lowermost sound pressure sensor of the three sensor and the uppermost sound pressure sensor of the three sensors can be considered to correspond to applicant’s plurality of sound pressure sensors, and these uppermost and lowermost sensors are considered to be placed at equal intervals about a horizontal axis spaced equally between them. The modified apparatus of Futamata does not teach that this horizonal axis is also a central axis of the housing. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing such that its shape is such that a central axis of the housing is also the same axis of the above-mentioned horizontal axis between the uppermost and lowermost sensors. The motivation for having the housing shaped in such a manner is that the housing could successfully perform its role of housing the sensors while having such a shape.
Futamata’s apparatus comprises a controller 18 configured to receive measurement signals from the sound pressure sensors. Futamata does not teach that these signals are used to determine if the ultrasonic cleaning device is behaving in a “normal” or “abnormal” fashion. However, Futamata teaches that the purpose of measuring the sound wave pressure is to allow a user to monitor the sound pressure in the cleaning tank (page 5 of translation). In the art of monitoring, it well known for a controller to issue an alarm to a user when a measured value of a system is outside an expected range, as such an alarm can notify a user that the system is malfunctioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Futamata by having the controller configured to determine that the ultrasonic cleaning bath is behaving abnormally when a measured sound pressure is outside an expected range, and wherein the controller issues an alarm to a user when such a determination of abnormality is made. Futamata teaches that the purpose of measuring the sound wave pressure is to allow a user to monitor the sound pressure in the cleaning tank (page 5 of translation), and motivation for such having the controller issue such an abnormality alert was provided by the fact that, in the art of monitoring, it well known for a controller to issue an alarm to a user when a measured value of a system is outside an expected range, as such an alarm can notify a user that the system is malfunctioning.
Remaining Claims
The examiner does not have prior art rejections for claims 3-9. However, since claim 3 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner isn’t yet ready to state that claim 3 necessarily contains allowable subject matter because the examiner can’t predict how applicant may choose to amend claim 3. With regard to claim 3, the most relevant prior art is Futamata, which was used above to reject claim 2. Futamata does not teach that the controller comprises a determiner with the control routine recited in the last nine lines of claim 3. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify Futamata to arrive at the invention recited by claim 3. Claims 4-9 depend from claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights