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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/242860 to Bao et al. (Bao hereinafter, copy provided by applicant on 5/26/2023) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0054349 to Hickey (Hickey).
Regarding claim 1, Bao teaches a device for acoustically producing a fluid jet, specifically including a laser driven micropump (604, see paragraph 70, LDMP hereinafter) which produces a fluidic jet in a tube (604) via a fiber optic element (see e.g. paragraph 64). Bao does not teach pushing a cylinder to enable liquid logic. Hickey teaches another laser driven microfluidic system generally, and particularly teaches that a cylinder (2, 3, see Fig. 7) may be driven by the laser system to selectively allow or block fluid flow through a secondary passage (containing A/B). Hickey teaches that this creates a gate with discrete flow-control states (closed in Fig. 7a and open in Fig. 7b) which is selectively movable (paragraph 57) and selectively allows or prevents fluid based on expansion of a fluid (water, see paragraph 57) against an end surface (2) of the cylinder so as to position the cylinder between discrete flow states (as noted above). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use a cylinder such as taught by Hickey in the pump of Bao in order to use the fluid jet thereof to selectively operate a gate or valve. The examiner notes that it would be equally obvious to replace the actuator (1) of Hickey with the LDMP of Bao (such as in order to operate on the scale discussed by Bao in paragraphs 55+). The examiner further notes that reciprocation of the gate is not claimed, that is either a single movement to open or a single movement to close the gate is sufficient to meet the functional gate limitations. Finally, the examiner notes that the pressure forces relied on by Hickey are not substantively different than the “momentum transfer of the jet” of the claimed invention. In both cases, collisions of individual molecules of the motivating fluid provide the impetus for fluid motion, and applicant has not specified any net flow conditions or fluidic gaps between the cylinder and the tube which would functionally distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Bao teaches a substrate (see paragraph 56) with a layer of photoacoustic material (formed by implantation of gold atoms) including nanoparticles (the gold atoms) and configured to generate a directional ultrasonic wave in response to a laser.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bao teaches that distal (i.e. first and second) ends of the fiber optic elements may include implanted metal (see paragraph 57).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Bao teaches that this provision of implanted metal provides the desired photoacoustic reaction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to implant such ions into surfaces of the cylinder of Paul as well, in order to increase the generation of fluid pressure.
Regarding claim 8, Bao teaches the use of water (paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 9, Bao teaches that the microtube may be disposed on a microfluidic chip (as illustrated in Fig. 14).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao in view of Hickey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0148237 to Thiesen et al. (Thiesen).
Regarding claim 3, the previously applied references teach the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but do not teach the use of a second LDMP. Thiesen teaches another microfluidic system generally (paragraph 21), and particularly teaches that an expansion actuator may be duplicated at a second end to provide a double action apparatus instead of one having a single action (paragraph 24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to duplicate the LDMP of Bao and place it at an opposite end and acting in an opposite direction in order to provide a double acting actuator as taught by Thiesen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Bao does not teach the logic element, the examiner agrees. However, this element is substantively taught by Hickey. Additionally, applicant alleges that Hickey “drives a solid mechanical actuator”. However, as discussed in paragraph 57 of Hickey, laser irradiation is applied to “an expanding material (1) (water)” to push the piston. This is not a solid mechanical actuator. With this in mind, when the applicant argues that the combination would not yield predictable results, the examiner disagrees. In both references, a laser is being used to energize a fluid to produce a mechanical result. As such, the combination is predictable as both references are used in similar fashion. The examiner holds that the use of a fluidic jet as taught by Bao in a confined space as taught by Hickey is no less predictable than any other pump or heating element by which a fluid may be energized. Accordingly, the claimed invention is held to be obvious in view of the cited references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 19 February 2026