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 with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on October 1, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the non-elected claims have been amended to align more closely with the elected invention (Remarks 7). The argument is not persuasive because despite the amendment, the elected invention and the non-elected inventions are still patentably distinct.
With respect to Inventions (I and III) and Invention II (claims 9 and 11-15), the inventions are related as process of making and product made, and the method of Invention II can be used to make a device that is materially different from the devices of Inventions I and III. For example, the method of Invention II produces a cap element having a recess that partially defines an actuator chamber, which is subject matter absent in the claims of Inventions I and III. While claims 1 and 16 (the claims that represent Inventions I and III) recite an actuator chamber extending between a cap and a monolithic body, the claims do not specify that the actuator chamber is defined by a recess in the cap.
With respect to Invention I and Invention III (Claims 16-21), the inventions are directed to related devices having different designs. The device of Invention III comprises, inter alia, a substrate having a buried cavity, which is a feature not present in the device of Invention I. Conversely, the device of Invention I comprises a monolithic body having a first face, which is a feature absent in the device of Invention III. Naturally, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
For the foregoing reasons, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 9 and 11-21 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 19, 2022 and June 11, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 15 of claim 1, a comma should be inserted after the limitation “first crystallographic structure”.
In claim 7, the limitation “includes” should be changed to “including”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the scope of the limitation “monolithic body” is unclear. According to the claim, the monolithic body comprises a membrane region, suggesting the existence of a non-membrane region in the monolithic body. Moreover, the claim recites that the membrane region (which is part of the monolithic body) itself has different portions of varying crystallographic structures (i.e. different granularities). If the monolithic body comprises different regions/portions that are physically distinguishable, it is unclear how the body can be “monolithic”. The specification does not provide clarity on this issue. In fact, the specification discloses a monolithic body 80 comprising distinct layers (e.g. layers 37’, 39) (see Fig. 3I), and the dependent claims (e.g. claim 4) further specifies that the membrane region of the monolithic body comprises additional, distinct layers.
For examination purposes, the limitation “monolithic” will be interpreted in light of the specification, meaning that a body comprising distinct regions of different structures and compositions can be considered “monolithic”.
In claim 1, the scope of the limitation “at least one first zone and one second zone” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the limitation “at least” modifies both zones (i.e. the device comprises at least one first zone and at least one second zone), or whether the limitation “at least” modifies only the “one first zone” (i.e. the device comprises at least one first zone and only one second zone). Based on subsequent references to the zones (the claims refer to “the at least one first zone” and “the second zone”) , the latter will be presumed.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it does not refer to “the at least one first zone” consistently. Claim 1 recites “at least one first zone” and claim 4 recites “the first zone”. As indicated above, the recitation of “at least one” renders the claim indefinite, and the inconsistency in claim 4 compounds the ambiguity of the limitation “at least one”.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the relationship between the zones and the various layers is unclear. According to claim 4, the sealing layer overlies the insulating layer at the first zone. Yet, claim 5 recites that the sealing layer overlies the insulating layer at the second zone. It is unclear to what zone the sealing layer and the insulating layer belong.
In claim 6, the recitation “with respect to the second zone” is indefinite. Given that the claim already specifies a direction in which the step protrudes, it is unclear what “with respect to the second zone” intends to convey.
Claim 8 is indefinite because the subject matter conveyed by the claim is unclear. The claim recites a method step, but given that the claimed invention is directed to a device, the recitation of the method step renders the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly rejected are rejected due to dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if they are rewritten or amended to overcome the applicable objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Giusti et al. (“Giusti”) (EP 3173235 A1) disclose a microfluidic device (see [0064] disclosing that the features of the device are micromachined) comprising (see Fig. 1A):
a monolithic body 2 having a peripheral surface defining a first face (upper surface of layer 7);
a fluidic chamber 6 in the monolithic body;
a first fluid opening (inlet) extending from the peripheral surface of the monolithic body and in fluidic communication with the fluidic chamber;
a cap element 4 extending above the monolithic body 2 and attached to the first face;
an actuator chamber 5 extending between the cap element 4 and the first face of the monolithic body;
a membrane region 7 in the monolithic body, the membrane region 7 extending between the first face and the fluidic chamber 6; and
a piezoelectric actuator element 3 extending on the first face, above the membrane region 7, inside the actuator chamber 5.
However, Giusti does not disclose that the membrane region 7 of the monolithic body includes multiple portions of crystallographic structures having different granularities as recited in independent claim 1. Moreover, based on the disclosure of Giusti and other pertinent prior art, there is no motivation to modify the monolithic body to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796