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 Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on November 19, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
*****
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application. Claim 10 remains withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 11, “comprises a same” would be clearer if written as --comprise a same--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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]).
[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 connection body being different from that of the first main plate. Takahashi teaches an actuator wherein:
an average thickness of a connection body (region Z) of a diaphragm (302) is more than an average thickness of a main plate (region X) (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).
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 connection body average thickness being larger than the main plate average thickness as taught by Takahashi in order to suppress tearing of the diaphragm 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]).
[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 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 first main plate has a first region (comprising 130c) not including the outer edge, and a second region surrounding the first region (comprising 130c) and including the outer edge (portion attached to 132), and wherein an average thickness of the first region (comprising 130c) is more than an average 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 first main plate has a first region (comprising 130c) not including the outer edge, and a second region surrounding the first region (comprising 130c) and including the outer edge (portion attached to 132), and wherein an average thickness of the first region (comprising 130c) is more than an average 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
Applicant's arguments filed on March 18, 2025 and in the appeal brief filed on November 19, 2025 have been considered but, are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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