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 filed July 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application. Claim 10 remains withdrawn from consideration. The previous objections to claims 1-9 and 11-22 are withdrawn in light of the Applicant's amendment to claim 1.
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, 8, 9, 11-14 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2018/0202428 to Mou in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0355430 to Takahashi.
Referring to claim 1, Mou teaches an actuator comprising:
a first main plate (130) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated below; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]);
a frame body (131) disposed on an outer side of an outer edge of the first main plate (130) and apart from the first main plate (130) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated below; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]);
a connection part (132, 135) disposed between the first main plate (130) and the frame body (131) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated below; paragraphs [0021-]-[0025]); and
a drive body (133) disposed at the first main plate (130), and causing the first main plate (130) to perform a bending vibration (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated below; paragraphs [0021-]-[0025]),
wherein the connection part (132, 135) has a connection body (132) and a gap (135), the connection body (132) and the gap (135) being disposed along the outer edge, the connection part (132, 135) being connected to the first main plate (130) and the frame body (131), the gap (135) being adjacent to the connection body (132) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated below; paragraphs [0021-]-[0025]), and
wherein the first main plate (130) and the connection body (132) comprises a same material (they are formed as a single piece and therefore a same material) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated below; paragraphs [0021-]-[0025]),
wherein the first main plate (130) has a first region where the drive body (133) is disposed and second region surrounding the first region, wherein each of the frame body (131), the connection body (132), the first region of the first main plate and the second region of the first main plate have constant thicknesses (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated below; paragraphs [0021-]-[0025]).
[AltContent: textbox (Second Region)][AltContent: textbox (First Region)][AltContent: textbox (Second Region)]
[AltContent: ]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
132
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First Main Plate)]
Annotation of Mou Figures 1C.
Mou does not teach the thickness of the frame body and the thickness of the connection body are each greater than the average thickness of the first main plate, and wherein the thickness of the second region of the first main plate is thinner than a thickness of the connection body. Takahashi teaches an actuator wherein:
wherein a thickness of a frame body and a thickness of a connection body (region Z) are each greater than the average thickness of a first main plate (region X), and wherein a thickness of a second region of the first main plate (region X) is thinner than a thickness of the connection body (region Z) (Figures 2 and 3; paragraphs [0043]-[0076], wherein paragraph [0059] teaches that the region where the angle A is from 0° to 75° is the region X, and paragraph [0069] teaches that the thickness in the region X where the angle A is from 0° to 75° is less than the thickness of the region Z).
[AltContent: textbox (First Region)][AltContent: textbox (Second Region)][AltContent: textbox (Second Region)]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Frame Body)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
484
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Takahashi Figures 3A.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mou with the thickness as taught by Takahashi in order to suppress tearing in the connection portion (Takahashi paragraph [0069]), and because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the thicknesses taught by Takahashi, for another, the thicknesses taught by Mou, to obtain predictable results, providing a pumping diaphragm, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 2, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Mou does not teach the thickness of the connection body being different from that of the frame body. Takahashi further teaches an actuator wherein:
an average thickness of a frame body is more than or equal to the average thickness of the connection body (region Z) (Figures 2, 3A and 3B, Fig. 3A annotated above; paragraphs [0043]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mao with the frame body average thickness relative to the connection body average thickness taught by Takahashi in order to suppress tearing of the diaphragm in the connection portion (Takahashi paragraph [0069]), provide a stiffer portion (because of the extra thickness) having more surface area (because of the curvature taught by Takahashi) for securing the periphery of the diaphragm, and because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the thicknesses taught by Takahashi, for another, the thicknesses taught by Mou, to obtain predictable results, providing a pumping diaphragm secured in the pump, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 3, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches an actuator wherein:
the second region includes the outer edge (portion attached to 132), and wherein the thickness of the first region (comprising 130c) is more than the thickness of the second region (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0021-]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 4, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches an actuator wherein:
the average thickness of the second region is less than the average thickness of the first main plate (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025], wherein the average thickness of the second region must be less than the average thickness of the main plate as a whole since the average thickness of the first region is greater than the average thickness of the second region and the average thickness of the main plate as a whole comprises the average thicknesses of both the first region and the second region).
Referring to claim 5, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches an actuator wherein:
the first main plate (130), the connection body (132), and the frame body (131) are integrally provided with each other, and wherein a lower end of the first main plate (130) in the thickness direction, a lower end of the connection body (132) in the thickness direction, and a lower end of the frame body (131) in the thickness direction are flush with each other (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 8, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches a fluid control device comprising:
the actuator according to Claim 1; a second main plate (12) disposed away from the first main plate (130) in a direction orthogonal to a main surface of the first main plate (130); and a connection member (136) disposed between the second main plate (12) and the frame body (131), and connected to the second main plate (12) and the frame body (131), wherein a main surface of the second main plate (12) is positioned parallel to the main surface of the first main plate (130), wherein the second main plate (12) has a through hole (120) extending in a direction orthogonal to the main surface of the second main plate (12), and wherein the fluid control device has a pump chamber (121) surrounded by the first main plate (130), the second main plate (12), and the connection member (136), and communicating with an outside via the gap (135) of the connection part and the through hole (120) of the second main plate (140) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 9, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 8, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches a fluid control device comprising:
a main surface of the first main plate (130) has a shape having no unevenness, the main surface facing the second main plate (12) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 11, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches an actuator wherein:
the second region includes the outer edge (portion attached to 132), and wherein the thickness of the first region (comprising 130c) is more than the thickness of the second region (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0021-]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 12, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches an actuator wherein:
the first main plate (130), the connection body (132), and the frame body (131) are integrally provided with each other, and wherein a lower end of the first main plate (130) in the thickness direction, a lower end of the connection body (132) in the thickness direction, and a lower end of the frame body (131) in the thickness direction are flush with each other (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 13, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches an actuator wherein:
the first main plate (130), the connection body (132), and the frame body (131) are integrally provided with each other, and wherein a lower end of the first main plate (130) in the thickness direction, a lower end of the connection body (132) in the thickness direction, and a lower end of the frame body (131) in the thickness direction are flush with each other (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 14, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 4, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches an actuator wherein:
the first main plate (130), the connection body (132), and the frame body (131) are integrally provided with each other, and wherein a lower end of the first main plate (130) in the thickness direction, a lower end of the connection body (132) in the thickness direction, and a lower end of the frame body (131) in the thickness direction are flush with each other (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 19, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches a fluid control device comprising:
the actuator according to Claim 2; a second main plate (12) disposed away from the first main plate (130) in a direction orthogonal to a main surface of the first main plate (130); and a connection member (136) disposed between the second main plate (12) and the frame body (131), and connected to the second main plate (12) and the frame body (131), wherein a main surface of the second main plate (12) is positioned parallel to the main surface of the first main plate (130), wherein the second main plate (12) has a through hole (120) extending in a direction orthogonal to the main surface of the second main plate (12), and wherein the fluid control device has a pump chamber (121) surrounded by the first main plate (130), the second main plate (12), and the connection member (136), and communicating with an outside via the gap (135) of the connection part and the through hole (120) of the second main plate (140) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 20, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches a fluid control device comprising:
the actuator according to Claim 3; a second main plate (12) disposed away from the first main plate (130) in a direction orthogonal to a main surface of the first main plate (130); and a connection member (136) disposed between the second main plate (12) and the frame body (131), and connected to the second main plate (12) and the frame body (131), wherein a main surface of the second main plate (12) is positioned parallel to the main surface of the first main plate (130), wherein the second main plate (12) has a through hole (120) extending in a direction orthogonal to the main surface of the second main plate (12), and wherein the fluid control device has a pump chamber (121) surrounded by the first main plate (130), the second main plate (12), and the connection member (136), and communicating with an outside via the gap (135) of the connection part and the through hole (120) of the second main plate (140) (Figures 1A-1D, Fig. 1C annotated above; paragraphs [0020]-[0025]).
Referring to claim 21, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Mou does not teach an average thickness of a frame body being greater than the average thickness of the first main plate. Takahashi further teaches an actuator wherein:
an average thickness of a frame body is greater than the average thickness of the first main plate (region X) (Figures 2, 3A and 3B, Fig. 3A annotated above; paragraphs [0043]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mao with the frame body thickness taught by Takahashi in order to provide a stiffer portion (because of the extra thickness) having more surface area (because of the curvature taught by Takahashi) for securing the periphery of the diaphragm, and because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the thicknesses taught by Takahashi, for another, the thicknesses taught by Mou, to obtain predictable results, providing a pumping diaphragm secured in the pump, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 22, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Mou further teaches a fluid control device wherein:
the first main plate (130), the connection body (132), and the frame body (131) are integrally provided with each other (Figures 2, 3A and 3B, Fig. 3A annotated above; paragraphs [0043]-[0076]).
Claims 6, 7 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2018/0202428 to Mou in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0355430 to Takahashi and U. S. Patent Publication 2015/0150470 to Sano.
Referring to claim 6, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach the first main plate having a circular shape. Sano teaches an actuator wherein:
a first main plate has a circular shape (Figures 4 and 5, Fig. 5 annotated below; paragraphs [0054]-[0095]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connection Body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connection Part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Main Plate)][AltContent: textbox (Frame Body)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
174
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Sano Figure 5.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mou with the circular main plate shape taught by Sano because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the first main plate circular shape of Sano, for another, the first main plate square shape of Mou, to obtain predictable results, pumping fluid by movement of the actuator, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 7, Mou, Takahashi and Sano teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 6, as detailed above, but Mou and Takahashi do not teach the first main plate having a circular shape. Sano further teaches an actuator wherein:
an inner edge of the frame body has a circular shape along the outer edge of the first main plate (Figures 4 and 5, Fig. 5 annotated above; paragraphs [0054]-[0095]).
Referring to claim 15, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but do not teach the first main plate having a circular shape. Sano teaches an actuator wherein:
a first main plate has a circular shape (Figures 4 and 5, Fig. 5 annotated above; paragraphs [0054]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mou with the circular main plate shape taught by Sano because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the first main plate circular shape of Sano, for another, the first main plate square shape of Mou, to obtain predictable results, pumping fluid by movement of the actuator, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 16, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but do not teach the first main plate having a circular shape. Sano teaches an actuator wherein:
a first main plate has a circular shape (Figures 4 and 5, Fig. 5 annotated above; paragraphs [0054]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mou with the circular main plate shape taught by Sano because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the first main plate circular shape of Sano, for another, the first main plate square shape of Mou, to obtain predictable results, pumping fluid by movement of the actuator, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 17, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 4, as detailed above, but do not teach the first main plate having a circular shape. Sano teaches an actuator wherein:
a first main plate has a circular shape (Figures 4 and 5, Fig. 5 annotated above; paragraphs [0054]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mou with the circular main plate shape taught by Sano because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the first main plate circular shape of Sano, for another, the first main plate square shape of Mou, to obtain predictable results, pumping fluid by movement of the actuator, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Referring to claim 18, Mou and Takahashi teach an actuator comprising all the limitations of claim 5, as detailed above, but do not teach the first main plate having a circular shape. Sano teaches an actuator wherein:
a first main plate has a circular shape (Figures 4 and 5, Fig. 5 annotated above; paragraphs [0054]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the actuator taught by Mou with the circular main plate shape taught by Sano because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the first main plate circular shape of Sano, for another, the first main plate square shape of Mou, to obtain predictable results, pumping fluid by movement of the actuator, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the combination of Mou and Takahashi does not teach the claimed constant thicknesses of the frame body, connection body and the first and second portions of the main plate. Remarks 1-2. The Applicant explains that Mou does not teach the connection body and the first main plate having different thicknesses and that “Takahashi discloses a cell culture device having a membrane that gradually increases in thickness toward annotation 'Z' provided in the Office action.” Remarks 1-2. However, though Mou may not teach different thicknesses for the connection body and the first main plate, Mou still teaches the connection body and the first main plate having a constant thickness as claimed. As detailed above, Takahashi is only relied on for the teaching that the thickness of the connection body is greater than the thickness of the main plate, not for the discloses gradual change in thickness also disclosed.
The Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach wherein the thickness of the frame body and the thickness of the connection body are each greater than the average thickness of a first main plate, and wherein a thickness of a second region of the first main plate is thinner than a thickness of the connection body. Remarks 2. However, as detailed above, Takahashi teaches these limitations.
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 BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights