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 without traverse of species ii, claims 1-5 and 8, in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electrostrictive transducer”, “first designated connection location”, and “designated support location” in claim 1, the “at least one of the first vibration element and the second vibration element includes a plurality of vibration elements” and “second designated connection location” in claim 2, and the “location” of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
PA Pub 0013 and claim 3 recite “the slit is provided in the columnar portion in a range within a phase angle of 0.20 π based on the nodes of the standing wave of the torsional vibration” while 0051 recites this is “based on the antinode” and figure 3B supports 0051. Thus, it is unclear if “node” is a typo or an embodiment not shown in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites “the frequency adjustment element is present behind the slit”. Since PA Pub 0046 states that behind is “in a left direction”, then “behind” in the claims will be interpreted in the same manner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). 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 1-5 and 8 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 recites “a first designated connection location which is included in a range within a phase angle of 0.05 x based on antinodes of a standing wave of the longitudinal vibration, and is included in a range within a phase angle of 0.22 x based on nodes of a standing wave of the torsional vibration”. It is unclear how the first designated connection location can be based on antinodes/nodes when the figure shows only one antinode/node in what appears to be each connection. Note claims 2 and 3 suffer from a similar issue.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiromaru (JP 8-294673 A) in view of Kimihiko et al. (JP 2005-288351 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jiromaru teaches:
An ultrasonic composite vibration device [ultrasonic vibrator; figures 1-3 and 6], which is an ultrasonic composite vibration element that induces composite vibration by synthesizing longitudinal vibration and torsional vibration [abstract], comprising:
a first vibration element [longitudinal wave ultrasonic oscillator (33)] having an transducer that generates the longitudinal vibration [ultrasonic oscillator (39) applies an electric signal to the longitudinal wave ultrasonic oscillator (33); page 3]; and
a second vibration element [horn (34)] having a slit [slit (5)] for converting the longitudinal vibration into the torsional vibration,
wherein the first vibration element and the second vibration element are co-axially connected at a first designated connection location which is included in a range within a phase angle of 0.05 x based on antinodes of a standing wave of the longitudinal vibration, and is included in a range within a phase angle of 0.22 x based on nodes of a standing wave of the torsional vibration [the connection between cone (32) and horn (34); figure 1], and
the first vibration element or the second vibration element is configured to be supported in a designated support location [supporting flange (31)].
Jiromaru does not teach:
an electrostrictive transducer;
a second vibration element having a frequency adjustment element;
a node of at least one of the standing wave of the longitudinal vibration and the standing wave of the torsional vibration is present at the designated support location.
Concerning the electrostrictive transducer:
Kimihiko teaches an ultrasonic compound vibrator that comprises bodies (2, 3), which are made of columnar components (21, 23, 25, 31, 33, 35), electrostrictive element (PZT) component (24), frequency adjustment elements (22, 32), and slitted torsional conversion unit (34), wherein the vibrator produces a composite longitudinal and torsional wave; figure 6, there is a node for both waves at approximately the center of the vibrator; figure 6, and the frequency adjustment elements adjusts the relationship between the waves to achieve a desired composite wave; page 7 and figure 3.
Since Jiromaru is silent as to what the oscillator is exactly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the PZT of Kimihiko since it is a known oscillator/transducer, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning the frequency adjustment element:
As noted above, Kimihiko teaches using frequency adjustment element (32) to adjust the relationship between the waves to achieve a desired composite wave; page 7 and figure 3.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Kimihiko frequency adjustment element (32) into Jiromaru in order to adjust the relationship between the waves so that a desired composite wave can be achieved.
Concerning the node at the designated support location:
Note that Jiromaru supporting flange (31) is approximately at the center between the slits and oscillator; figure 3.
As noted above, Kimihiko teaches there is a node for both waves at approximately the center of the vibrator; figure 6.
Miura teaches a composite vibration device wherein mounting flange (51) is placed at the node of the longitudinal wave (WVa); 0021 and figures 2 and 3.
While one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to extrapolate that the Jiromaru waves would have nodes at the center of the vibration device where the supporting flange is located, especially in light of Kimihiko figure 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the vibrator so that the supporting flange is at the nodes of the both waves because this is where the vibrator would have little to no movement and/or because this is a known option as taught by Miura.
Regarding claim 2, Jiromaru teaches:
wherein at least one of the first vibration element [longitudinal wave ultrasonic oscillator (33)] and the second vibration element [horn (34)] includes a plurality of vibration elements [either of these could include cone (32)].
Jiromaru does not expressly teach:
the plurality of vibration elements is co-axially connected at a second designated connection location which is included in the range within the phase angle of 0.05 x based on the antinodes of the standing wave of the longitudinal vibration, and is included in the range within the phase angle of 0.22 x based on the nodes of the standing wave of the torsional vibration.
However, Jiromaru teaches the connections of cone (32) between horn (34) and oscillator (33) are equally spaced and that standing waves at the connection between the cone and the horn meet this limitation for the first designated connection; see figure 1 and the rejection of claim 1.
One looking at Jiromaru figure 3 would note that waves shown in Kimihiko figure 6 are extremely similar, if not the same, as that of Jiromaru, and that Kimihiko waves could be separated into three equal sections so as to correspond to the Jiromaru three elements (32, 33, 34).
While one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to extrapolate that the Jiromaru waves would have a similar standing wave appearance at the connection between the cone and oscillator, especially in light of Kimihiko figure 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the vibrator so that this connection mimics that of the other due to symmetry and/or because there is less movement with the torsional node being located at these locations.
Regarding claim 3, Jiromaru teaches:
wherein the second vibration element has a shape in which a columnar portion [right side of unit (2); figure 1] and a cylindrical portion [left side of unit (2)] are co-axially continuous at a location [where these two sides meet] which is included in the range within the phase angle of 0.22 π based on the nodes of the standing wave of the torsional vibration, and
the slit is provided in the columnar portion in a range within a phase angle of 0.20 π based on the nodes of the standing wave of the torsional vibration [see figure 1].
Regarding claim 4, Jiromaru does not teach:
wherein the frequency adjustment element is present behind the slit in the second vibration element.
Kimihiko teaches slitted torsional conversion unit (34) is behind the frequency adjustment element (32); figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the Kimihiko frequency adjustment element behind slits (5) since it is known to do so.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is addressed in the rejection of claim 1:
wherein the node of the standing wave of the torsional vibration is present in the designated support location.
Regarding claim 8, Jiromaru teaches:
An ultrasonic bonding device [ultrasonic welder; figure 3] comprising:
the ultrasonic composite vibration device according to Claim 1 [see the rejection of claim 1];
a horn tip [tip (4)] attached to a distal end part of the second vibration element [horn (34)]; and
an anvil [anvil (37)] disposed facing the horn tip to support a workpiece serving as a bonding target.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights