DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
One of the information disclosure statements filed January 12, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS considered have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular reference in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-36 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 28 line 6, “thickened, rim” would be clearer if written as --thickened rim--.
In claim 28 line 6, “facilitate sealing” would be clearer if written as --facilitate a sealing--.
In claims 31 and 32, line 1, “configured allow” would be clearer if written as --configured to allow--.
In claims 31 and 32, line 2, “the inlet and the outlet” would be clearer if written as --an inlet and an outlet-- since neither have been previously recited.
In claims 31 and 32, line 2, “the pneumatic” would be clearer if written as --a pneumatic--.
In claim 34 line 1, “claim 28” would be clearer if written as --claim 33-- in order to provide antecedent basis for the elastomer.
In claim 35 line 3, “port (208)” would be clearer if written as --port--.
In claim 38 line 4, “chamber (206)” would be clearer if written as --chamber--.
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.
Claim 38 is 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 38 is dependent upon cancelled claim 1 and it is unclear which independent claim was intended to be recited instead. The Examiner notes that in further interpreting the claims, it is assumed that what is meant is --claim 21-- since this is the first recited claim. As such, in claim 38 line 4, “a valving” would be clearer if written as --a second valving-- and in line 5, “the gas” would be clearer if written as --the second control gas--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 28-32, 35 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2007/0077156 to Orr in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0020178 to Ohrle and Japanese Patent Publication JPH10196814(A) to Satoshi.
The Examiner notes that all citations to Satoshi refer to the English language machine translation provided by the Applicant.
Referring to claim 28, Orr teaches a flexible membrane suitable for use in a membrane-based valve:
the membrane (260l, 270l) being preformed to comprise: a diaphragm portion (272i) able to maintain fluidic separation between a liquid (from 130i) disposed on a first side of the membrane (260l, 270l) and a control gas (from B) disposed on a second side of the membrane (260l, 270l), when the membrane (260l, 270l) is installed for use in the membrane-based valve, a rim configured to facilitate a sealing engagement of the membrane (260l, 270l) with one or more rigid components (110, 160l) of the membrane-based valve; and a valving chamber (between 110 and the membrane) for containing the liquid and a control gas chamber (between the membrane and 160l) containing the control gas when the membrane (260l, 270l) is installed for use in the membrane-based valve and configured to open the valve when atmospheric pressure is supplied to the second side of the membrane (when opened to the vent) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174] and [0180]).
Orr does not teach a thickened rim. Ohrle teaches a membrane comprising:
a thickened rim (5) (Fig. 1; paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the membrane taught by Orr with the thickened rim taught by Ohrle in order to provide a clamping surface (paragraph [0020]).
Orr and Ohrle do not teach a second region of the diaphragm with a second curvature. Satoshi teaches a membrane wherein:
a diaphragm portion (7) of a membrane is formed to have a first region with a cross-sectional curvature in a first direction and a second region located within the first region with a cross-sectional curvature in a second direction opposite the first direction, and wherein in a plan view, a center of the second region is located within the first region and is offset from a center of the diaphragm portion (paragraph [0019]; Figures 1 and 2, Fig. 1 annotated below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Region)][AltContent: textbox (First Region)][AltContent: textbox (Second Region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
458
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Satoshi Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the membrane taught by Orr with the curvatures taught by Satoshi in order to provide a curvature which improves sealing and separation with the valve seat (paragraph [0019]).
Referring to claim 29, Orr, Ohrle and Satoshi teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 28, as detailed above, and Orr further teaches a membrane wherein:
the rim is adapted for interconnection with at least one of a valving chamber wall (wall of 10) and a control gas chamber wall (wall of 160l) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174]).
Referring to claim 30, Orr, Ohrle and Satoshi teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 28, as detailed above, and Orr further teaches a membrane wherein:
the membrane (260l, 270l) when in an installed and operable configuration in the membrane-based valve is configured to occlude a raised valve seat (112i) of the valving chamber upon application of positive pressure to the control gas chamber (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174] and [0180]).
Referring to claim 31, Orr, Ohrle and Satoshi teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 28, as detailed above, and Orr further teaches a membrane wherein:
the membrane (260l, 270l) is configured allow liquid through an inlet (130i) and an outlet (152i) when negative pressure is applied at a pneumatic port (B) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174]).
Referring to claim 32, Orr, Ohrle and Satoshi teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 28, as detailed above, and Orr further teaches a membrane wherein:
the membrane (260l, 270l) is configured allow liquid through an inlet (130i) and an outlet (152i) when atmospheric pressure is applied at the pneumatic port (B) (when opened to the vent) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174]).
Referring to claim 35, Orr, Ohrle and Satoshi teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 28, as detailed above, and Orr further teaches a membrane wherein:
the rim is configured to be fastened between first and second mating rigid components (110, 260l) of the membrane-based valve, the first rigid component of the membrane-based valve comprising a first plate (160l) including a pneumatic port (B) configured to deliver pneumatic pressure to the membrane (260l, 270l); and the second rigid component comprising a midplate (110) including a liquid inlet (130i) and a liquid outlet (152i) in fluid communication with the membrane (260l, 270l) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174]).
Referring to claim 36, Orr, Ohrle and Satoshi teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 28, as detailed above, and Orr further teaches a membrane wherein:
the thickness of the membrane is substantially uniform (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174]).
Orr and Ohrle do not teach a second region of the diaphragm with a second curvature. Satoshi further teaches a membrane wherein:
the thickness of the membrane is substantially uniform across both the first region and the second region of the diaphragm portion (7) of the membrane (paragraph [0019]; Figures 1 and 2, Fig. 1 annotated above).
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2007/0077156 to Orr in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0020178 to Ohrle, Japanese Patent Publication JPH10196814(A) to Satoshi and U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0194332 to Jahn.
Referring to claim 33, Orr, Ohrle and Satoshi teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 28, as detailed above, including wherein Orr teaches a rim and a preformed diaphragm (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174]), but are silent as to the material of the diaphragm. Jahn teaches a membrane wherein:
a diaphragm is formed from an elastomer (paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, at the time of invention, to make the Orr diaphragm from an elastomer, as taught by Jahn, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 34, Orr, Ohrle, Satoshi and Jahn teach a membrane comprising all the limitations of claim 33, as detailed above, but are silent as to the material of the diaphragm. Jahn further teaches a membrane wherein:
the elastomer is a silicone (paragraph [0022]).
Claim 37 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2007/0077156 to Orr in view of Japanese Patent Publication JPH10196814(A) to Satoshi.
Referring to claim 37, Orr teaches a flexible membrane (260l, 270l) suitable for a membrane-based valve (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174]):
the membrane pre-formed to have an elongate shape in a plan view (as shown in Fig. 10A, the diaphragm is longer in one direction than the other in plan view and therefore elongate) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0154]-[0174] and [0180]).
Orr and Ohrle do not teach a second region of the diaphragm with a second curvature. Satoshi teaches a membrane (7) wherein:
wherein a first section of the membrane (7) has a cross-sectional curvature in a first direction, and a second section of the membrane (7) located within the first section has a cross-sectional curvature in a second direction opposite the first direction, and wherein in a plan view, a center of the second section is located within the first section and is offset from a center of the membrane (7) (paragraph [0019]; Figures 1 and 2, Fig. 1 annotated above).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the membrane taught by Orr with the curvatures taught by Satoshi in order to provide a curvature which improves sealing and separation with the valve seat (paragraph [0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-27 are allowable. Claim 38 would be allowable if rewritten 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach a membrane-based valve comprising all the limitations of claim 21, but more specifically comprising the first plate including a pneumatic port configured to deliver pneumatic pressure to the membrane; the midplate including a liquid inlet and a liquid outlet in fluid communication with the membrane and a raised valve seat fluidly connected to the fluid inlet; the second plate further defining the liquid inlet and liquid outlet, the membrane having a liquid side facing the midplate and an opposing actuation side facing the first plate, the membrane and first plate defining a control gas chamber, and the membrane and midplate defining a valving chamber; wherein a thickened rim of the membrane is configured to be held in a groove in the midplate by the first plate; and wherein a surface of the liquid side of the membrane is pre-formed to have a first region with a cross-sectional curvature in a first direction and a second region located within of the first region with a cross-sectional curvature in a second direction opposite the first direction the pre- formed membrane holds the valve open to flow upon the application of atmospheric pressure through the pneumatic port.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Snodgrass, Park, Gross, Chiba and Greisch teach similar membranes as the claimed membranes.
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