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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 03/23/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 12 are amended. Claim 14 is added. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application with claims 1, 6, and 11 being independent.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, claims recite: “detecting whether the at least one ultrasound vibration is abnormal”. The term “abnormal” in claims 1 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormal” 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. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claims are not clear as it is open to the subjective interpretation of the reader.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 depend upon indefinite claims 1 and 6 and are considered to be indefinite as well due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda et al. (JP Publication No. 2010004948) hereinafter “Yoda” in view of Abe et al. (JP 2009034386) hereinafter “Abe”.
Regarding claim 11, Yoda discloses a cosmetic care device [see abstract of Yoda] comprising:
a head including at least one skin temperature sensor [see page 2, penultimate paragraph disclosing a temperature sensor in contact with the skin of a user provided in an ultrasound probe head] and at least one ultrasonic vibrator [see page 5, penultimate paragraph disclosing a piezoelectric material for providing ultrasound vibrations] ; and
a main body [ultrasonic beauty instrument main body 11; see page 6, penultimate paragraph] including a pulser configured to create an ultrasonic waveform, [see page 6, third paragraph disclosing generation of the ultrasound waveform using the circuitry that connect to the power supply and transducer (i.e. pulser)] and
a controller [control unit 19] configured to control the at least one ultrasonic vibrator included in the head, [see page 6, first paragraph of Yoda]
wherein the controller is configured to, when a specific ultrasonic vibrator among the at least one ultrasonic vibrator is predicted to reach a temperature equal to or higher than a preset threshold temperature temperature, lower a voltage input to the pulser [see page 4, penultimate paragraph of the page disclosing turning off the operation of the vibrator if the temperature exceeds a preset threshold (i.e. the voltage is lowered to zero); page 9, penultimate paragraph disclosing lowering the output of the ultrasound probe]
Yoda does not disclose an increase an irradiation time of the specific ultrasonic vibrator such that the specific ultrasonic vibrator is operated at a temperature lower than the predetermined temperature.
Abe, directed towards controlling the output of an ultrasound probe [see abstract of Abe] further discloses that the controller is configured to increase an irradiation time of the specific ultrasonic vibrator such that the specific ultrasonic vibrator is operated at a first temperature lower than the preset threshold temperature. [see page 9, penultimate paragraph disclosing increasing the time lapse to achieve a certain output power consumption]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Yoda further such that the controller is configured to increase an irradiation time of the specific ultrasonic vibrator such that the specific ultrasonic vibrator is operated at a temperature lower than the predetermined temperature according to the teachings of Abe in order to achieve a desired power output [see page 9, penultimate paragraph]
Regarding claim 12, Yoda in view of Abe discloses all the limitations of claim 11 [see rejection of claim 11 above]
Yoda further discloses that the preset threshold temperature corresponds to 43 degrees Celsius. [Yoda discloses that the second reference value is 42 degrees Celsius. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the threshold of Yoda and make it 43 degrees Celsius instead since it has been held that discovering optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)]
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda et al. (JP Publication No. 2010004948) hereinafter “Yoda” in view of Abe et al. (JP 2009034386) hereinafter “Abe” as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Slayton et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0018286) hereinafter “Slayton”.
Regarding claim 13, Yoda in view of Abe discloses all the limitations of claim 12 [see rejection of claim 12 above]
Yoda in view of Abe does not disclose that the controller is configured to adjust the pulser with a voltage or a current obtained via frequency shifting in units of 3 to 5Khz within a range having a minimum value of -10% of a resonant frequency of the specific ultrasonic vibrator and a maximum value of +l 0% of the resonant frequency when the irradiation time of the specific ultrasonic vibrator is equal to or greater than 5 minutes.
Slayton, directed towards monitoring and controlling ultrasound power output [see abstract of Slayton] discloses adjusting the pulser with a voltage or a current obtained via frequency shifting in units of 3 to 5Khz within a range of +/-10% of a resonant frequency [Slayton does not expressly disclose the shifting increments; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to make the increments be 3-5 KHz within a 10% range of the resonant frequency since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617, F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980)] of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator when a surface temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator is not lowered to a target temperature within a predetermined target time [see [0067] of Slayton]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Yoda as modified by Abe further such that it further includes adjusting the pulser with a voltage or a current obtained via frequency shifting in units of 3 to 5Khz within a range of +/-10% of a resonant frequency of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator when a surface temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator is not lowered to a target temperature within a predetermined target time according to the teachings of Slayton in order to maintain maximum efficiency of the ultrasound prove and avoid overheating of the device [see [0018] of Slayton]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 14, the prior art fails to anticipate and/or render obvious either solely or in combination, among other features of the claims: “in response to determining that the target energy compensation is required, obtaining a predicted temperature from a look-up table (LUT) stored in a memory, the LUT indicating the predicted temperature based on: i) a difference between an input voltage and an output voltage of a pulser, ii) an initial temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator, and iii) an irradiation time of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator; and when the predicted temperature exceeds a preset threshold temperature, controlling the input voltage of the pulser until a temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator reaches a first temperature lower than the preset threshold temperature and then increasing the irradiation time until a total output energy of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator reaches the target energy amount.”
Below is a comparison of the prior art with the allowed claims:
Ku (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0176581) hereinafter “Ku”: Ku which is considered to be the closest prior art to the claims disclose a method of controlling an ultrasound vibrator system which determines whether the system is in the normal state. Ku does not however disclose in response to determining that the target energy compensation is required, obtaining a predicted temperature from a look-up table (LUT) stored in a memory, the LUT indicating the predicted temperature based on: i) a difference between an input voltage and an output voltage of a pulser, ii) an initial temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator, and iii) an irradiation time of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator; and when the predicted temperature exceeds a preset threshold temperature, controlling the input voltage of the pulser until a temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator reaches a first temperature lower than the preset threshold temperature and then increasing the irradiation time until a total output energy of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator reaches the target energy amount.”
Nishimura et al. (JP 2003/34019A) hereinafter “Nishimura”: Nishimura which is directed towards an ultrasound vibration device disclose detecting when the device is in the normal state, the power is held steady by changing eh voltage level to a higher level. Nishimura however does not however disclose in response to determining that the target energy compensation is required, obtaining a predicted temperature from a look-up table (LUT) stored in a memory, the LUT indicating the predicted temperature based on: i) a difference between an input voltage and an output voltage of a pulser, ii) an initial temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator, and iii) an irradiation time of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator; and when the predicted temperature exceeds a preset threshold temperature, controlling the input voltage of the pulser until a temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator reaches a first temperature lower than the preset threshold temperature and then increasing the irradiation time until a total output energy of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator reaches the target energy amount.”
Yoda et al. (JP 2010004948) hereinafter “Yoda”: Yoda directed towards a control circuit of an ultrasound device discloses that if the temperature rises above a threshold that is disclosed in a look up table, the operation is stopped such that the temperature would drop to below the predetermined temperature. However, Yoda also fails to disclose that the LUT temperature is based on a difference between an input voltage and an output voltage of a pulser, ii) an initial temperature of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator, and iii) an irradiation time of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator; and then increasing the irradiation time until a total output energy of the at least one ultrasonic vibrator reaches the target energy amount.”
Claims 2-5, and 7-10 depend upon allowable claims 1 and 6 and are considered to be allowable at least by virtue of their dependence upon allowable base claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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 Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights