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 .
Examiner’s Amendment
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Kiyoshi Kozu on October 7, 2026.
The application has been amended as follows:
Amend lines 11-16 of claim 2 as follows:
a plurality of sound pressure sensors, each of the plurality of sound pressure sensors having a same detection characteristic, the plurality of sound pressure sensors being placed in [[a]] the rear end part of the support body at equal intervals about a central axis of the support body, wherein the ultrasonic wave propagates through the support body, and wherein vibration caused by the ultrasonic wave propagated through the support body is detected as a sound pressure value by each of the plurality of sound pressure sensors; and
Amend claim 8 as follows: The ultrasonic cleaning device according to claim 4, wherein,
when the plurality of sound pressure sensors includes only two sound pressure sensors, the reference sound pressure value is the sound pressure value detected by the higher sound pressure sensor.
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.
Futamata, as developed thus far, does not teach that the housing 32 modified to contain the three vertically arranged sound pressure sensors is partially immersed in the cleaning liquid of the cleaning tank 12. However, applicant’s claim 1 is considered to only positively recite the detector. A cleaning tank with cleaning liquid is not considered to be positively recited by claim 1. Applicant’s limitation specifying that cleaning liquid partially immerses the support body can be considered an “intended use” of applicant’s apparatus (MPEP 2114). In the modified apparatus Futamata, the cleaning tank 12 is structurally capable of containing cleaning liquid up to a height (within the cleaning tank 12) such that the housing 32 (modified to contain the three vertically arranged sound pressure sensors) is partially immersed in the cleaning liquid and such that the sound pressure sensors are in a non-immersed, non-wetted part of the housing.
Allowable Claims
Claims 2-9 are allowed. The reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by independent claim 2. With regard to claim 1, the most relevant prior art is JP2022096264 by Futamata, which was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Futamata does not teach a support body having a tip end part at a tip end thereof and a rear end part at a rear end thereof, the rear end part being not immersed in the cleaning liquid, wherein at least the tip end part is immersed in the cleaning liquid, and wherein the plurality of sound pressure sensors are placed in the rear end part of the support body at equal intervals about a central axis of the support body. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Futamata to arrive at the invention recited by claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, applicant points out that the piezoelectric bodies in Figure 10 have different resonant frequency bands instead of having a same detection characteristic. Applicant argues that “Futamata does not disclose or suggest a plurality of sound pressure sensors having the same detection characteristics with each other”. On page 10 of applicant’s arguments, applicant continues this argument by arguing that “Futamata employs elements having different resonant frequency bands when a plurality of elements are used”. The examiner agrees that Futamata does not teach having three pressure sensors with the same detection characteristic. However, as articulated in the examiner’s rejection of claim 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.
As articulated in the rejection of claim 1, the three vertically arranged sound pressure sensors in the housing 32 have the same detection characteristic, as averaging the results of three identical pressure sensors could result in a more accurate detection than simply relying on the accuracy of a single sensor.
Applicant argues that “in the claimed invention, the central axis is a structural central axis extending in the longitudinal direction of the support body”. However, applicant’s claim 1 does not recite that the central axis extends in the longitudinal direction of the support body.
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 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