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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 5 has now been amended depend from claim 1. This is not found persuasive because while claim 5 has been amended, groups I and II still lack the same or corresponding special technical feature over the new prior art, Mancini et al. (2022/00404785A1). Mancini teaches all the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection below); therefore; the restriction is proper. Claims 1-3 and 11 (group I) will be examined as requested by the Applicant.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Applicant amended claim 5 to depend from claim 1; however; the amendment is not underlined. New limitations added to a claim should be underlined. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “a ratio h/w of a length h of the bonding part from an upper surface side of the bottom plate part to a thickness w of the bonding part is equal to or smaller than 1.5”. The claim states that there is “a bonding part vertically protruding from the bottom plate part” which would indicate that the bonding part is separate from the bottom plate. However, then claiming “a ratio h/w of a length h of the bonding part from an upper surface side of the bottom plate part” would now indicate that the bonding part includes the bottom plate. Does the bonding plate include the bottom plate or are they separate components of the claimed horn tip? Does the length include both the bonding part and the bottom plate? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation. For the purpose of examination, a length includes the bottom plate and the bonding part.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a length of the bonding part” is the same length from claim 1 or if it is a different length. Furthermore, it is unclear if “an upper surface side of the bottom plate” is the same upper surface from claim 1 or if it is a different upper surface side. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify. For the purpose of examination, they are the same length and same upper surface side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mancini et al. (2022/0040785).
Regarding claim 1, Mancini discloses a horn tip (figures 1-2) used to bond workpieces by ultrasonic bonding, the horn tip comprising: a bottom plate 7 part provided with a plurality of through-holes (there would be through-holes for the screws to pass, shown in figure 2) for passing screws; and a bonding part 1, 2 vertically protruding from the bottom plate part, wherein the bottom plate part is provided with a groove part (shown below, figure 4c) on a lower surface side that contacts a surface of an ultrasonic horn 1, and a ratio h/w of a length h of the bonding part from an upper surface side of the bottom plate part to a thickness w of the bonding part is equal to or smaller than 1.5 (figures 1-2). Since the length and thickness can be any length that starts from the upper surface of the bottom plate and includes the bonding part, and any thickness measurement along the bonding part (the claim does not have to be a full length or full thickness of the bonding part), the claim limitation would be met. Please see the 112 rejection above regarding the length of the bonding part.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mancini discloses that the bonding part 1, 2 protrudes vertically from one end edge extending in a longitudinal direction of the bottom plate part 7 (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Mancini discloses a thickened part 5 having a thickness that gradually increases from the bottom plate part toward a base end part 4 continuous with the bonding part (shown below, figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
557
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, since the horn tip of Mancini comprises a length of the bonding part from an upper surface side of the bottom plate part, the horn tip would be equal to or smaller than half a resonant length. A resonant length can be any length. It is not defined as a specific resonant length for a specific horn tip and can be any value. Therefore, the claim limitation is met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights