William Lash. Phillips et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2020

2018006009 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/518,248 08/23/2012 William Lash Phillips THOLAM P507US 8359
20210 7590 12/14/2020
DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C.
112 PLEASANT STREET
CONCORD, NH 03301
EXAMINER
GRAF, IRINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mbujold@nhpat.com
patent@nhpat.com
tclark@nhpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM LASH PHILLIPS,
SHAWN SMITH, and BYRON KIESER
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed June 21, 2012 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed April 6, 2017
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed December8, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); and
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 7, 2018 (“Ans.”). No reply brief to the
Examiner’s Answer was filed.
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject pending claims 50–70.3 Appeal Br. 2–3. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to a method and apparatus for
cleaning industrial components, particularly heat exchangers. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 50, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 12):
50. An apparatus for cleaning industrial components, comprising:
a liquid container having a sidewall defining a liquid
enclosure for containing a cleaning liquid; and
ultrasonic transducers having an operating frequency
and a wavelength in the cleaning liquid and secured to at
least a portion of the liquid container at a spacing of
between 2 and 10 wavelengths between adjacent ultrasonic
transducers in a radial direction relative to an axis of the
ultrasonic transducers, wherein:
the ultrasonic transducers are resonating rod
transducers fixedly secured to an inner surface of the
liquid container in a two dimensional plane;
the liquid container has a component-receiving
area that is spaced perpendicularly outward from the
ultrasonic transducers by a distance of 5 to 10 times
the operating wavelength relative to the sidewall of
the liquid container; and

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Tech Sonic Limited Partnership as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 Claims 71–90 have been withdrawn from consideration. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

3
the ultrasonic transducers are spaced such that,
in operation, the power density of each resonating
rod transducer interacts to generate a power density
in the component-receiving area of the liquid
container that is greater than an average power
density between the ultrasonic transducers and the
component-receiving area.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Basso et al.
hereinafter “Basso”
US 5,143,103 September 1, 1992
Pedziwiatr et al.
hereinafter
“Pedziwiatr”
US 6,019,852 February 1, 2000
Fisch et al.
hereinafter “Fisch”
US 6,276,370 B1 August 21, 2001
Goodson
hereinafter “Goodson
’977”
US 7,247,977 B2 July 24, 2007
Goodson
hereinafter “Goodson
’575”
US 2011/0132575 A1 June 9, 2011
REJECTIONS4
1. The Examiner rejected claims 50–52, 54–56, 58, 59, 63, and
65–70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious over
Goodson ’977 and Pedziwiatr. Final Act. 5–12.

4 In the Answer, the Examiner repeats only the rejection of claim 50 as
obvious over Goodson ’977 and Pedziwiatr. Ans. 3–6. However, there is no
indication that the other rejections have been withdrawn. As a result, we
interpret the Examiner’s restatement of the rejection of claim 50 only as a
response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, which, as indicated
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

4
2. The Examiner rejected claims 53, 60, and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious over Goodson ’977, Pedziwiatr,
and Fisch. Final Act. 13–14.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as obvious over Goodson ’977, Pedziwiatr, and Basso.
Final Act. 14–15.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 62 and 64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious over Goodson ’977, Pedziwiatr,
and Goodson ’575. Final Act. 15–18.

OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the
claims subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 10. We select claim 50 as
representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 50 as obvious over Goodson ’977 and Pedziwiatr,
the Examiner found Goodson ’977 discloses an apparatus for cleaning parts
including ultrasonic transducers secured to at least a portion of a liquid
container, where the ultrasonic transducers are resonating rod transducers
secured to an inner surface of the liquid container. Final Act. 5–6. The
Examiner found Goodson ’977 does not disclose that the ultrasonic
transducers are secured at a spacing of between 2 and 10 wavelengths

below, are limited to claim 50 (see Ans. 6), and not an indication that the
rejections of the other pending claims have been withdrawn.
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

5
between adjacent ultrasonic transducers in a radial direction relative to an
axis of the ultrasonic transducers. Id. at 6.
The Examiner found Pedziwiatr discloses an apparatus for cleaning
components including a liquid container and ultrasonic transducers secured
to at least a portion of the container, where the distance between ultrasonic
transducers is selected such that the distance between transducers is not too
small to cause interference and not too large such that the ultrasonic energy
field is uneven. Id. The Examiner found Pedziwiatr discloses that superior
ultrasonic cleaning may be attained when the distance between transducers
operating at 40 kHz and 80 kHz is 3.25 inches, which corresponds to a range
of 2 to 4 operating wavelength. Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to have
modified the cleaning apparatus of Goodson ’977 with the spacing disclosed
in Pedziwiatr to provide the predictable result of enhancing the performance
of ultrasonic cleaning by removing deleterious interference. Id. at 7.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends Pedziwiatr discloses ultrasonic transducers that
are mounted to the outer surface wall of a bath, which introduce vibrations
in the wall of the bath, where the wall acts as a common vibratory
diaphragm providing a uniform ultrasonic power distribution to the bath.
Appeal Br. 4, 8. As a result, Appellant contends the transducers in
Pedziwiatr do not interact directly with the cleaning liquid in the bath as in
Goodson ’977. Id. at 4. Appellant argues also that Pedziwiatr’s ultrasonic
transducers are stacked transducers, which transmit energy as a directional
beam from the end face, which is different from a resonating rod transducer,
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

6
which transmits ultrasonic energy omnidirectionally. Id. Appellant
contends that the transducers in Goodson ’977 and Pedziwiatr are not
interchangeable or equivalent, and give rise to different problems such that
the spacing in Pedziwiatr cannot be applied to Goodson ’977. Id. at 4–10.
Thus, Appellant contends that because of these differences, Goodson ’977
and Pedziwiatr cannot be combined to arrive at the claimed apparatus absent
improper hindsight. Id. at 4, 9–10. Appellant argues that Pedziwiatr does
not disclose the claimed power density, which limits the types of transducers
that may be used, and the transistors in Pedziwiatr are incapable of providing
the power density relationship recited in claim 50. Id. at 7–8.

Issue
Did Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position
that it would have been obvious to have spaced the resonating rod
transducers of Goodson ’977 in view of the disclosure in Pedziwiatr to arrive
at the apparatus recited in claim 50?

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As explained by the
Examiner, Pedziwiatr is relied upon for the spacing between adjacent
ultrasonic transducers based upon the physics of the interactions of the
sound waves emitted from each of the plurality of transducers and not for
placing the stacked-type transducers of Pedziwiatr in the cleaning apparatus
of Goodson ’977. Ans. 9–10. Pedziwiatr discloses ultrasonic transducers
having two different frequencies that are spaced apart in order to provide a
distance that is great enough to avoid deleterious interference between the
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

7
transducers, and also to provide a uniform field of ultrasonic energy within
the cleaning bath. Pedziwiatr, col. 3, l. 60 – col. 4, l. 21. Pedziwiatr
discloses deleterious interference of two ultrasonic transducers having
different frequencies as a decrease in cleaning effectiveness or destruction of
the transducers. Id. at col. 1, ll. 55–62.
Although Appellant contends the issues and problems associated with
mounting the ultrasonic transducers on the bottom of the outside of the
cleaning tank as disclosed in Pedziwiatr (see Pedziwiatr Figs. 1, 2), are
different than the embodiment of Goodson ’977 relied upon by the
Examiner, where the ultrasonic transducers are mounted inside the tank (See
Goodson ’977, Fig. 5), we are not persuaded by this argument for the
reasons discussed below. In addition, while Appellant emphasizes that
Pedziwiatr discloses a different type of transducer than Goodson ’977, and
that in Pedziwiatr, the bottom of the tank serves as a vibratory diaphragm,
we are not persuaded that such differences are sufficient to demonstrate error
on the part of the Examiner.
That is, as the Examiner points out in the Answer, both Goodson ’977
and Pedziwiatr disclose ultrasonic transducers operating at multiple
frequencies. Ans. 18–19; Goodson ’977, col. 4, ll. 59–64; Pedziwiatr, col. 4,
ll. 4–12. We have not been directed to sufficient evidence that the issues
identified in Pedziwiatr with respect to transducers having different
frequencies apply only to a particular type of transducer in a particular
mounting arrangement, such that the interference issues identified therein
would not also be present in the resonating rod transducers operating at
different frequencies disclosed in Goodson ’977. Pedziwiatr discloses such
interferences occur between the transducers, whereas other issues arising as
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

8
a result of mounting the transducers to the bottom wall of the tank are
addressed using different bottom wall thicknesses. Pedziwiatr, col. 1, l. 64 –
col. 2, l. 18, col. 4, l. 50 – col. 5, l. 3. In addition, the Specification does not
describe any particular criticality to using rod-type transducers that are
mounted within the container, disclosing that plate-type transducers mounted
externally to the container may also be used. Spec. ¶ 34.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the spacing
of Pedziwiatr cannot be applied to Goodson ’977 to arrive at spacing
arrangement recited in claim 50. Although Appellant contends that the
spacing in Pedziwiatr is in a perpendicular direction rather than a radial
direction, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 16–17), the spacing disclosed in
Pedziwiatr as applied to Goodson ’977 would be used to separate the
transducers therein, resulting in spacing in the radial direction as recited in
claim 50.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the power
density recited in claim 50 would not have been obvious as a result of the
combination of Goodson ’977 and Pedziwiatr. That is, Appellant’s
contention that Pedziwiatr discloses a vibratory diaphragm that would act as
a wave guide such that the power density would not be greater in the
component-receiving area is not persuasive. As the Examiner points out,
claim 50 recites that the power density relationship is obtained as a result of
the spacing between the transducers recited in the claim. Ans. 15–16.
Thus, when Goodson ’977, which discloses resonating rod transducers
inside the tank, is modified with the optimized spacing as recited in
Pedziwiatr, the power density relationship recited in claim 50 would be
satisfied. The vibratory diaphragm disclosed in Pedziwiatr would not be
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

9
present in the combination proposed by the Examiner because the
transducers in Goodson ’977 are mounted inside the tank.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 50 as well
as the claims dependent therefrom.

Rejections 2–4
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the
claims subject to these rejections, relying instead on the dependency of the
claims from independent claim 50. Appeal Br. 10–11. Accordingly, we
affirm Rejections 2–4 for similar reasons as discussed above for claim 50.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
50–52, 54–
56, 58, 59,
63, 65–70
103(a) Goodson ’977,
Pedziwiatr
50–52, 54–
56, 58, 59,
63, 65–70

53, 60, 61 103(a) Goodson ’977,
Pedziwiatr, Fisch
53, 60, 61
57 103(a) Goodson ’977,
Pedziwiatr, Basso
57
62, 64 103(a) Goodson ’977,
Pedziwiatr,
Goodson ’575
62, 64
Overall
Outcome
50–70
Appeal 2018-006009
Application 13/518,248

10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED