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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Each structural feature should be preceded by an article, but the phrase “inlet and outlet ports” on line 6 lacks an article preceding it; it is suggested to insert the term “the” before this phrase. Commas and semi-colons appear be to be used interchangeably at the ends of passages (see commas at the ends of lines 4 and 8 but semi-colons at the ends of lines 6 and 11), but only one should be used to ensure consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “the bulk piezoelectric thickness” on line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis since this is the first time this feature is being introduced in the claim; since it is clear that this is intended to refer to a thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer, it is suggested to amend this phrase to recite “thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: When referring to “fluid”, claim 4 alternates between referring to a specific fluid (“the fluid”) and referring to fluid in general (just “fluid”). To maintain consistency, either every reference to “fluid” should refer to a specific fluid (that is, every recitation of “fluid” following the first recitation of “fluid” should include the term “the” preceding it) or every reference to “fluid” should refer to fluid in general (that is, every recitation of “fluid” lacks an article preceding it); it is suggested to amend the claim such that every reference to fluid is general (that is, the term “the” is removed from line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “the bulk piezoelectric layer thickness” on lines 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis since this is the first time this feature is being introduced in the claim; it is suggested to amend this phrase to recite “thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer . 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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
Re claim 1, the language of claim 1 renders it unclear as to what recited elements constitute the “MEMs micropump”. Specifically, the language renders it unclear as to: whether the micropump include a “substrate” or whether its components are simply arranged in the form of a substrate, whether the “first and second valves” form a part of the “pump” or not, whether each of the “first and second valves” include a “thin film piezoelectric layer” or whether the claim only requires a single “thin film piezoelectric layer”, and how the “pump” relates to the “micropump” (that is, are they the same or is the “pump” a component of the “micropump”). For the sake of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as follows:
1. A MEMs micropump comprising:
a lower wafer and an upper wafer that together function to pump fluid through the micropump, [[and]]]
first and second valves on opposing sides of the micropump,
an inlet port for receiving fluid and an outlet port for releasing fluid,
a chamber that communicates with the inlet and outlet portsto form a fluid path within the micropump[[;]], and
a bulk piezoelectric layer;
wherein the upper wafer includes a membrane;
wherein the first and second valves each include a valve seat within the fluid path and each include a thin film piezoelectric layer configured to cause the membrane to deflect and engage the respective valve seat thereby preventing fluid flow within the fluid path; and
wherein the bulk piezoelectric layer causes the membrane to deflect, thereby withdrawing fluid from the inlet port into the chamber and pumping fluid out of the chamber and outlet port.
It is suggested to amend claim 1 in this manner to overcome the objection set forth above and this 112(b) rejection. Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Re claim 3, the language of claim 3 render it unclear as to the number of “silicon dioxide layers” required by the claim. That is, it is unclear whether the claim requires multiple “silicon dioxide layers” on top of the membrane and multiple “silicon dioxide layers” on bottom of the membrane or whether the claim only requires one “silicon dioxide layer” on top of the membrane and one “silicon dioxide layer” on the bottom of the membrane. For the sake of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as follows:
3. (Original) The MEMs micropump of claim 1 wherein the membrane comprises a silicon layer and the upper wafer includes a silicon dioxide layer[[s]] on top of the membrane and a silicon dioxide layer on bottom of the membrane.
It is suggested to amend claim 3 in this manner to overcome this 112(b) rejection.
Re claim 4, the language of claim 4 renders it unclear as to what recited elements constitute the “micropump”. Specifically, the language renders it unclear as to: whether the micropump include a “substrate” or whether its components are simply arranged in the form of a substrate and how the “pump” relates to the “micropump” (that is, are they the same or is the “pump” a component of the “micropump”). For the sake of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as follows:
4. A micropump comprising:
a substrate including an inlet port for receiving fluid, an outlet port for releasing [[the]] fluid and a chamber communicating with the inlet and outlet ports to form a fluid path;
a membrane configured to deflect in and out of the fluid path;
a valve including a valve seat within the fluid path and a thin film piezoelectric layer configured to cause the membrane to deflect and engage the valve seat thereby preventing fluid flow within the fluid path; and
It is suggested to amend claim 4 in this manner to overcome the objection set forth above and this 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US Pat 9,103,336).
Re claim 1, Kang discloses a MEMs micropump 1 (Fig 1; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 1 unless otherwise noted) comprising: a lower wafer 931 and an upper wafer 990+971+510 that together function to pump fluid through the micropump (Col 5, Lines 47-59), first and second valves 110,310 on opposing sides of the micropump (as seen in Fig 1), an inlet port 100 for receiving fluid (Col 5, Lines 33-36) and an outlet port 300 for releasing fluid (Col 5, Lines 40-46), a chamber 400 that communicates with the inlet and outlet ports to form a fluid path within the micropump (Col 5, Lines 14-16); and a bulk piezoelectric layer 2000 (Col 5, Lines 22-24); wherein the upper wafer includes a membrane 510 configured to deflect in and out of the fluid path (Col 5, Lines 28-46), wherein the first and second valves each include a valve seat 120,320 within the fluid path (as seen in Fig 1) and each include a thin film piezoelectric layer 900,900 configured to cause the membrane to deflect and engage the respective valve seat thereby preventing fluid flow within the fluid path (Col 7, Lines 56-59); and wherein the bulk piezoelectric layer causes the membrane to deflect, thereby withdrawing fluid from the inlet port into the chamber and pumping fluid out of the chamber and outlet port (Col 5, Lines 28-46).
Re claim 3, Kang discloses that the membrane comprises a silicon layer (Col 2, Lines 2-4) and the upper wafer includes a silicon dioxide layer on top of the membrane and a silicon dioxide layer on bottom of the membrane (Col 2, Lines 4-7).
Re claim 4, Kang discloses a micropump 1 (Fig 1; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 1 unless otherwise noted) comprising: a substrate 931+971+990 (Col 5, Lines 47-59) including an inlet port 100 for receiving fluid (Col 5, Lines 33-36), an outlet port 300 for releasing fluid (Col 5, Lines 40-46) and a chamber 400 communicating with the inlet and outlet ports to form a fluid path (Col 5, Lines 14-16); a membrane 510 configured to deflect in and out of the fluid path (Col 5, Lines 28-46); a valve 110 including a valve seat 120 within the fluid path (as seen in Fig 1) and a thin film piezoelectric layer 900 configured to cause the membrane to deflect and engage the valve seat thereby preventing fluid flow within the fluid path (Col 7, Lines 56-59); and a bulk piezoelectric layer 2000 (Col 5, Lines 22-24) for causing the membrane to deflect, thereby withdrawing fluid from the inlet port into the chamber and pumping fluid out of the chamber and outlet port (Col 5, Lines 28-46).
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US Pat 9,103,336) in view of O’Neill (PG PUB 2005/0244288).
Re claim 2, Kang discloses that the lower wafer comprises a silicon base layer and a silicon dioxide layer that is layered over the silicone base layer (Col 2, Lines 1-7). Kang does not explicitly disclose that thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer is increased as thickness of the membrane is decreased. O’Neill, however, teaches a micropump 5 (Fig 1; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 1 unless otherwise noted) comprising a bulk piezoelectric layer 4 attached to a membrane 6 (Para 16; similar to how bulk piezoelectric layer 2000 is attached to membrane 510 of Kang), wherein the bulk piezoelectric layer increases in thickness to move the membrane from its rest state (in which the membrane is not stretched, as seen in Fig 1 and like in Kang) to its expanded state (as seen in Fig 3a; Para 18, “stack 4 will expand […] causing the diaphragm 6 to bend up) for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4). Because the membrane is deformed from its rest state where it is linear (as seen in Fig 1) to its expanded state where it is stressed from the linear, the membrane will reduce thickness (due to the inherent properties of such a material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kang to include the bulk piezoelectric layer as one whose thickness increases when acting on the membrane and to include the membrane as one whose thickness decreases when acted upon by the bulk piezoelectric layer, as taught by O’Neill, for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4).
Re claim 5, Kang discloses all the claimed features except explicitly disclosing that thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer is increased as thickness of the membrane is decreased. O’Neill, however, teaches a micropump 5 (Fig 1; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 1 unless otherwise noted) comprising a bulk piezoelectric layer 4 attached to a membrane 6 (Para 16; similar to how bulk piezoelectric layer 2000 is attached to membrane 510 of Kang), wherein the bulk piezoelectric layer increases in thickness to move the membrane from its rest state (in which the membrane is not stretched, as seen in Fig 1 and like in Kang) to its expanded state (as seen in Fig 3a; Para 18, “stack 4 will expand […] causing the diaphragm 6 to bend up) for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4). Because the membrane is deformed from its rest state where it is linear (as seen in Fig 1) to its expanded state where it is stressed from the linear, the membrane will reduce thickness (due to the inherent properties of such a material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kang to include the bulk piezoelectric layer as one whose thickness increases when acting on the membrane and to include the membrane as one whose thickness decreases when acted upon by the bulk piezoelectric layer, as taught by O’Neill, for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMI A BOSWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571)272-4965. 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.
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights