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 .
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
(i) Claims 7 and 8 are objected to, since they depend from cancelled claim 3. Cancellation of claims 7 and 8, or amending claims 7 and 8 to depend from pending claims, is required.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1) and Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1).
As per claim 1, Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) discloses a fluid control device (e.g. 100) comprising: a fluid control valve (e.g., 3 - see also, inter alia, paragraphs [0001, 0013], etc.) driven by a piezo actuator (e.g., 7), a fluid sensor (e.g., 2) which measures a pressure or a flow rate of a fluid (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0028]), a control board (e.g., B) which controls the fluid control valve based on a measured value measured by the fluid sensor (2) (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0027, 0035]), and a discharge resistor (e.g., RA - (e.g., see, paragraph [0028])) provided on a component different from the control board (B) (e.g., see paragraph [0032] and Figs. 1, 4, 6), and a main unit (e.g., 1) comprising a cover (e.g., 4), the fluid control valve (e.g., 3) and the fluid sensor (e.g., 2) being accommodated within the cover (e.g., 4 - see Fig. 1), and wherein the discharge resistor (e.g., RA) is provided within the cover (e.g., 4) of the main unit (e.g., 1).
As per claim 2, wherein the discharge resistor (e.g., RA) is connected in parallel with the piezo actuator (7) (e.g., see, inter alia, Figs. 2, 3, paragraphs [0032, 0057]).
As per claim 6, wherein the discharge resistor (e.g. RA) is provided within a case e.g., the housing structure as seen in Figs. 1, 4-6, which encases the piezo blocks (71)) containing a piezo stack (e.g. 71 including piezoelectric elements of the piezo block) of the piezo actuator (7).
However, assuming that the drive circuit (which includes the discharge resistors (RA) of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1)) is not a separate component from the control board (B), simply repositioning a drive circuit (with an associated discharge resistor) as being separated from a control board, is well-known within the electronics application control art.
As just one example, Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) is cited to show wherein the drive circuit of an electronic device is separated from the control board thereof (e.g., see inter alia, paragraph [0012] and paragraph [0079] - "the improved structure in which the control circuit substrate and the discharge resistance substrate having the discharge resistance are provided independently"] of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the driving circuit and/or its associated discharge resistor as being on a separate component than the control board, as explicitly suggested by Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1), in order to advantageously "reduce the overall size of the control circuit module and accommodate them in the casing with a compact size while maintaining the electrical connection between the control circuit substrate, the capacitor module and the discharge resistance substrate." See paragraph [0079] of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1).
Additionally, Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1) is cited to show wherein the discharge resistor and a control circuit (board) are advantageously separated (being provided on different components) in order to "locate the control substrate apart from the discharge resistor as a source of heat generation, as far as possible" and to further "ensur[e] a sufficient distance between the discharge resistor for discharging the capacitor, and the control substrate that controls the discharge resistor, and also electrically connecting the discharge resistor with the control substrate while assuring space-saving." See paragraph [0008] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1); see also paragraphs [0006-0007] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the driving circuit and/or its associated discharge resistor as being on a separate component than the control board, as explicitly suggested by Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), in order to advantageously "locate the control substrate apart from the discharge resistor as a source of heat generation, as far as possible" and to further "ensur[e] a sufficient distance between the discharge resistor for discharging the capacitor, and the control substrate that controls the discharge resistor, and also electrically connecting the discharge resistor with the control substrate while assuring space-saving." See paragraph [0008] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1); see also paragraphs [0006-0007] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1).
As per amended claim 1, Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1), Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), remains silent regarding wherein the control board is provided separately from the main unit outside the cover and is connected to the main unit by a connection cable or a connector.
Such positioning of control boards (e.g., PCBs with control chips mounted thereon) outside and exterior to electronic devices in which they have control over, is well-known in the electronic device art.
As just one example, Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1) is cited to show an electronic device (HDD) in which the control board (e.g., 50 - PCB with control chips (52) of the HDD - Fig. 1) is expressly and intentionally provided separately from the main unit (HDD) outside the cover (e.g., 11, 12) for the HDD, and is connected to the main unit (HDD) (11, 12) by a connection cable or a connector - see Figs. 1 and paragraph [0011].
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the control board of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) as provided separately from the main unit outside the cover and is connected to the main unit by a connection cable or a connector, as explicitly suggested by Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1), in order to advantageously ensure that the controller, semiconductor chips mounted on the control board " are directly exposed to the outside air, [such that] the heat generated from the semiconductor chips can be easily dissipated." See paragraph [0011].
Moreover, regarding claims 4, 5, 7, 8, setting forth "wherein the discharge resistor is provided in a power supply terminal part which extends from a case which accommodates a piezo stack of the piezo actuator," (claim 4); "wherein the discharge resistor is formed by forming a resistive film on a substrate made of an insulating material, and the substrate is formed with a through hole to be attached to the power supply terminal part," (claim 5), "wherein the discharge resistor is provided on the connection cable or the connector," (claim 7) and "the main unit has an internal board which processes signals from the fluid sensor, and the discharge resistor is provided on the internal board," (claim 8), given the teachings of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), in combination with the well-known resistor thin-film components in the art, and the manner of attaching to terminals of electronic components, simply rearranging and/or repositioning the discharge resistor in electrical connections within electrical devices, such that the discharge resistor maintains a parallel connection to the electrical component that is desired to be discharged in a safe and reliable manner, is seen to be well within the skill of the ordinary artisan. That is, given the teachings of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (provided for in claims 4-5, 7, and 8), to position the discharge resistor/driving circuit in various manners, as provided for in claims 4-5, 7, and 8, in order to advantageously "reduce the overall size of the control circuit module and accommodate them in the casing with a compact size while maintaining the electrical connection between the control circuit substrate, the capacitor module and the discharge resistance substrate." See paragraph [0079] of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or in order to advantageously "locate the control substrate apart from the discharge resistor as a source of heat generation, as far as possible" and to further "ensur[e] a sufficient distance between the discharge resistor for discharging the capacitor, and the control substrate that controls the discharge resistor, and also electrically connecting the discharge resistor with the control substrate while assuring space-saving." See paragraph [0008] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1); see also paragraphs [0006-0007] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1).
In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court rejected a rigid approach to the question of obviousness, and ultimately reaffirmed that "when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)).
Furthermore, it has been held that the mere rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1) and Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hidaka et al. (US 2020/0199753 A1).
See the discussion of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1) and Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1), supra.
As per clam 9, although Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1) and Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1) remain silent regarding applying the fluid control device, to a vaporization system, such vaporization systems (e.g., as used in semiconductor manufacturing systems used with fluid control devices) are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Hidaka et al. (US 2020/0199753 A1) discloses a vaporization system (e.g., 4) including a vaporizer part (e.g., 41) for vaporizing a liquid (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0049-0050]) and a fluid control device (e.g., 100) for controlling the gas vaporized by the vaporizer part (as per claim 9).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Hidaka et al. (US 2020/0199753 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the fluid control device (e.g. 100) comprising the fluid control valve an system, of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1) and Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1), with the well- known vaporization system of Hidaka et al. (US 2020/0199753 A1), in order to advantageously " appropriately control temperatures of fluid heating sections that are maintained at different temperatures." See abstract of Hidaka et al. (US 2020/0199753 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant alleges that the applied references fail to disclose, in toto, the invention as now claimed in the amendment filed on February 3, 2026, stating:
That is, the cited references, whether taken alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest at least the following distinguishing features in together combination as recited in claim 1: (1) a configuration in which the control board is physically separated from the main unit, disposed outside the cover of the main unit, and electrically connected to the main unit via a connection cable or connector; and (2) a configuration in which the discharge resistor is provided within the cover of the main unit, and is provided on a component different from the control board.
The Examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection, supra, assuming that the drive circuit (which includes the discharge resistors (RA) of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1)) is not a separate component from the control board (B), simply repositioning a drive circuit (with an associated discharge resistor) as being separated from a control board, is well-known within the electronics application control art.
Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) is cited to show wherein the drive circuit of an electronic device is separated from the control board thereof (e.g., see inter alia, paragraph [0012] and paragraph [0079] - "the improved structure in which the control circuit substrate and the discharge resistance substrate having the discharge resistance are provided independently"] of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1)). Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the driving circuit and/or its associated discharge resistor as being on a separate component than the control board, as explicitly suggested by Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1), in order to advantageously "reduce the overall size of the control circuit module and accommodate them in the casing with a compact size while maintaining the electrical connection between the control circuit substrate, the capacitor module and the discharge resistance substrate." See paragraph [0079] of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1).
Moreover, Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1) is cited to show wherein the discharge resistor and a control circuit (board) are advantageously separated (being provided on different components) in order to "locate the control substrate apart from the discharge resistor as a source of heat generation, as far as possible" and to further "ensur[e] a sufficient distance between the discharge resistor for discharging the capacitor, and the control substrate that controls the discharge resistor, and also electrically connecting the discharge resistor with the control substrate while assuring space-saving." See paragraph [0008] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1); see also paragraphs [0006-0007] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1). Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the driving circuit and/or its associated discharge resistor as being on a separate component than the control board, as explicitly suggested by Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), in order to advantageously "locate the control substrate apart from the discharge resistor as a source of heat generation, as far as possible" and to further "ensur[e] a sufficient distance between the discharge resistor for discharging the capacitor, and the control substrate that controls the discharge resistor, and also electrically connecting the discharge resistor with the control substrate while assuring space-saving." See paragraph [0008] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1); see also paragraphs [0006-0007] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1).
Additionally still, as per amended claim 1, Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1), Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), remains silent regarding wherein the control board is provided separately from the main unit outside the cover and is connected to the main unit by a connection cable or a connector. Such positioning of control boards (e.g., PCBs with control chips mounted thereon) outside and exterior to electronic devices in which they have control over, is well-known in the electronic device art.
As just one example, Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1) is cited to show an electronic device (HDD) in which the control board (e.g., 50 - PCB with control chips (52) of the HDD - Fig. 1) is expressly and intentionally provided separately from the main unit (HDD) outside the cover (e.g., 11, 12) for the HDD, and is connected to the main unit (HDD) (11, 12) by a connection cable or a connector - see Figs. 1 and paragraph [0011].
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the control board of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) as provided separately from the main unit outside the cover and is connected to the main unit by a connection cable or a connector, as explicitly suggested by Yoo (US 2005/0041326 A1), in order to advantageously ensure that the controller, semiconductor chips mounted on the control board " are directly exposed to the outside air, [such that] the heat generated from the semiconductor chips can be easily dissipated." See paragraph [0011].
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, 8, setting forth "wherein the discharge resistor is provided in a power supply terminal part which extends from a case which accommodates a piezo stack of the piezo actuator," (claim 4); "wherein the discharge resistor is formed by forming a resistive film on a substrate made of an insulating material, and the substrate is formed with a through hole to be attached to the power supply terminal part," (claim 5), "wherein the main unit has a connection cable or a connector connected to the control board, and the discharge resistor is provided on the connection cable or the connector," (claim 7) and, insofar as claim 8 can be best understood "the main unit has an internal board which processes signals from the fluid sensor, and the discharge resistor is provided on the internal substrate," (claim 8), given the teachings of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), in combination with the well-known resistor thin-film components in the art, and the manner of attaching to terminals of electronic components, simply rearranging and/or repositioning the discharge resistor in electrical connections within electrical devices, such that the discharge resistor maintains a parallel connection to the electrical component that is desired to be discharged in a safe and reliable manner, is seen to be well within the skill of the ordinary artisan. That is, given the teachings of Miyamoto (US 2020/0166150 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (provided for in claims 4-5, 7, and 8), to position the discharge resistor/driving circuit in various manners, as provided for in claims 4-5, 7, and 8, in order to advantageously "reduce the overall size of the control circuit module and accommodate them in the casing with a compact size while maintaining the electrical connection between the control circuit substrate, the capacitor module and the discharge resistance substrate." See paragraph [0079] of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0334440 A1) and/or in order to advantageously "locate the control substrate apart from the discharge resistor as a source of heat generation, as far as possible" and to further "ensur[e] a sufficient distance between the discharge resistor for discharging the capacitor, and the control substrate that controls the discharge resistor, and also electrically connecting the discharge resistor with the control substrate while assuring space-saving." See paragraph [0008] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1); see also paragraphs [0006-0007] of Hirose (US 2014/0210260 A1).
In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court rejected a rigid approach to the question of obviousness, and ultimately reaffirmed that "when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)).
Furthermore, it has been held that the mere rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688