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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented in the 4/21/2026 Interview and echoed in the 6/14/2026 Remarks with respect to the rejections of the claims using Kang have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the last Office Action (dated 1/14/2026) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Richter, as set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/19/2026 contains more than 700 references, including more than 600 non-patent literature references. Although these references have been considered to the degree possible in the amount of time allotted for examination, the Examiner requests the Applicant please point out any of these references that Applicant feels are particularly/most relevant to the present invention.
Specification
The amended Abstract filed 6/14/2026 is acceptable and has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1-5 filed 6/14/2026 overcome all of the objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the last Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “the” should be inserted before the term “outlet” on line 20 in order to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “layer” should be inserted after the term “piezoelectric” on line 3 to match the language of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “a” in the phrase “a first and second silicon dioxide layers” should be removed in order to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richter (PG PUB 2005/0123420).
Re claim 1, Richter discloses a MEMS micropump (the structure located in housing 61, as seen in Fig 1; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 1 unless otherwise noted) comprising: a lower wafer 30 and an upper wafer 10 that together function to pump fluid through the MEMS micropump (Para 38,39); first and second valves 62,64 (Para 36) on opposing sides of the MEMS micropump (as seen in Fig 1); an inlet port 32 for receiving fluid (Para 33,36,39) and an outlet port 64 for releasing fluid (Para 33,36,38); a chamber 40 that communicates with the inlet and outlet ports forming a fluid path within the MEMs micropump (Para 34,38,39); and a bulk piezoelectric layer 24 (Para 32 – “the piezo-elements 22, 24, 26 […] may be formed on the membrane by a screen print or other thick film techniques”), wherein the upper wafer includes a membrane (the wafer 10 itself, Para 32 – “membrane element 10”) configured to deflect in and out of the fluid path (Para 38,39), wherein the first and second valves each include a valve seat (labeled in Fig A below) within the fluid path (as seen in Fig 1) and a thin film piezoelectric layer 22,26 (Para 32 – “the piezo-elements 22, 24, 26 […] may be formed on the membrane by a screen print or other thick film techniques”) configured to cause the membrane to deflect and engage the respective valve seat thereby preventing fluid flow within the fluid path (Para 38,39), 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 the outlet port (Para 38,39).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 4, Richter discloses a micropump (the structure located within housing 61, as seen in Fig 1; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 1 unless otherwise noted) having an architecture that is configured as a substrate (as seen in Fig 1), the micropump comprising: an inlet port 32 for receiving fluid (Para 33,36,39); an outlet port 34 for releasing fluid (Para 33,36,38); a chamber 40 communicating with the inlet and outlet ports, thereby forming a fluid path through the inlet port, the chamber and the outlet port (Para 34,38,39); a membrane 10 (Para 32 – “membrane element 10”) configured to deflect in and out of the fluid path (Para 38,39); a valve 62 including a valve seat (labeled in annotated Fig A above) within the fluid path (as seen in Fig 1) and a thin film piezoelectric layer 22 (Para 32 – “the piezo-elements 22, 24, 26 […] may be formed on the membrane by a screen print or other thick film techniques”) configured to cause the membrane to deflect and engage the valve seat thereby preventing fluid flow within the fluid path (Para 38,39) and a pump including the chamber and a bulk piezoelectric layer 24 (Para 32 – “the piezo-elements 22, 24, 26”) for causing the membrane to deflect, thereby withdrawing fluid from the inlet port into the chamber and pumping fluid through the chamber and out the outlet port (Para 38,39).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (PG PUB 2005/0123420) in view of Kang et al. (US Pat 9,103,336) and O’Neill (PG PUB 2005/0244288).
Re claim 2, Richter discloses that the lower wafer comprises a silicon base layer (Para 35) but does not explicitly disclose that the lower wafer also comprises a silicon dioxide layer that is layered over the silicon base layer or that a thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer is increased as thickness of the membrane is decreased.
Kang, however, teaches a micropump 10 (Fig 1) comprising an upper wafer 990+971 (Fig 1) and a lower wafer 931 (Fig 1), wherein the lower wafer comprises a silicon base layer 930 (“handle layer 930” – Col 5, Line 51-53, wherein Col 2, Line 2-7 set forth that the “handle layer” can be silicon) and a silicon dioxide layer 920 (“buried layer 920” – Col 5, Lines 51-53, wherein Col 2, Lines 2-7 set forth that the buried layer can be silicon dioxide) that is layered over the silicon base layer (as seen in Fig 1 and Fig 2, layer 920 is over layer 930) for the purpose of protecting the base layer when the valve seat are being etched (Col 4, Lines 52-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Richter to include the lower water with a silicon dioxide layer layered over the silicon base layer, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of protecting the base layer when the valve seats are being etched (Col 4, Lines 52-60) . Kang does not disclose that a thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer is increased as thickness of the membrane is decreased.
Richter discloses that the membrane is formed of silicon (Para 35) and that the membrane is in a linear rest state when not acted upon by the bulk piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig 1) and is stretched to an expanded state when acted upon by the bulk piezoelectric layer (Para 38,39). Because the membrane is formed of silicon (Para 35), the membrane will reduce thickness when moving from the rest state to the expanded state due to the inherent properties of a silicon membrane1. Richter/Kang does not disclose that thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer is increased as the thickness of the membrane is decreased; that is, Richter/Kang does not disclose that the bulk piezoelectric layer increases in thickness when it acts upon the bulk piezoelectric layer. O’Neill, however, teaches a micropump 5 (Fig 1) comprising a bulk piezoelectric layer 4 (Fig 1) attached to a membrane 6 (Fig 1) (Para 16; similar to how bulk piezoelectric layer 24 is attached to the membrane of Richter), wherein the bulk piezoelectric layer increases in thickness to move the membrane from a rest state (in which the membrane is not stretched, as seen in Fig 1 and like in Richter) to an expanded state (seen in Fig 3a; Para 18, “stack 4 will expand […] causing the diaphragm to bend up”) for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Richter to include the bulk piezoelectric layer as one whose thickness increases when activated, as taught by O’Neill, for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (PG PUB 2005/0123420) in view of Kang et al. (US Pat 9,103,336).
Re claim 3, Richter discloses that the membrane comprises a silicon layer (Para 35) but does not explicitly disclose that the upper wafer includes first and second silicon dioxide layers on a top and bottom of the membrane, respectively. Kang, however, teaches surrounding a silicon membrane 950+910 (Fig 1; “the diaphragm 510 shown in Fig 1 is made from the device layers 950 and 910” – Col 5, Lines 56-59, wherein Col 2, Lines 2-7 set forth that the device layers can be silicon) with an upper silicon dioxide layer 960 (“buried layer 960” – Col 5, Line 50, wherein Col 2, Lines 2-7 set forth that the buried layer can be silicon dioxide) and a lower silicon dioxide layer 920 (“buried layer 920” – Col 5, Lines 51-52, wherein Col 2, Lines 2-7 set forth that the buried layer can be silicon dioxide) for the purpose of protecting the membrane during manufacturing when various recesses are formed via etching(Col 6, Lines 8-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Richter to include the upper water with silicon dioxide layers sandwiching the membrane, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of protecting the membrane during manufacturing when the recesses surrounding the membrane (disclosed in Para 35) are formed via etching (Col 6, Lines 8-12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (PG PUB 2005/0123420) in view of O’Neill (PG PUB 2005/0244288).
Re claim 5, Richter discloses that the membrane is formed of silicon (Para 35) and that the membrane is in a linear rest state when not acted upon by the bulk piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig 1) and is stretched to an expanded state when acted upon by the bulk piezoelectric layer (Para 38,39). Because the membrane is formed of silicon (Para 35), the membrane will reduce thickness when moving from the rest state to the expanded state due to the inherent properties of a silicon membrane2. Richter does not disclose that thickness of the bulk piezoelectric layer is increased as the thickness of the membrane is decreased; that is, Richter does not disclose that the bulk piezoelectric layer increases in thickness when it acts upon the bulk piezoelectric layer. O’Neill, however, teaches a micropump 5 (Fig 1) comprising a bulk piezoelectric layer 4 (Fig 1) attached to a membrane 6 (Fig 1) (Para 16; similar to how bulk piezoelectric layer 24 is attached to the membrane of Richter), wherein the bulk piezoelectric layer increases in thickness to move the membrane from a rest state (in which the membrane is not stretched, as seen in Fig 1 and like in Richter) to an expanded state (seen in Fig 3a; Para 18, “stack 4 will expand […] causing the diaphragm to bend up”) for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Richter to include the bulk piezoelectric layer as one whose thickness increases when activated, as taught by O’Neill, for the purpose of providing fast movement of the diaphragm to achieve a desired flow (Para 4).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/711,760 in view of Richter (PG PUB 2005/0123420).
Claim 7 of the copending application discloses all the features of claims 1 and 4 of the current application except explicitly claiming that the thin piezoelectric layer is a “film”. Richter, however, teaches providing a piezoelectric layer in the form of a film (Para 32 – “the piezoelectric elements 22,24,26 […] may be formed on the membrane by a screen print or other thick film techniques”) for the purpose of attaching the piezoelectric layer to the membrane (Para 32); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending thin piezoelectric layer to be formed as a film for the purpose of attaching the piezoelectric layer to the membrane (Para 32).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/834,008 in view of Richter (PG PUB 2005/0123420).
Claim 7 of the copending application discloses all the features of claim 4 of the current application except explicitly claiming that the thin piezoelectric layer is a “film”. Richter, however, teaches providing a piezoelectric layer in the form of a film (Para 32 – “the piezoelectric elements 22,24,26 […] may be formed on the membrane by a screen print or other thick film techniques”) for the purpose of attaching the piezoelectric layer to the membrane (Para 32); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending thin piezoelectric layer to be formed as a film for the purpose of attaching the piezoelectric layer to the membrane (Para 32).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 6 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/834,018 in view of Richter (PG PUB 2005/0123420).
Claim 10 of the copending application discloses all the features of claim 1 of the current application and claims 4 and 6 of the copending application discloses all of the features of claim 4 of the current application except explicitly claiming that the thin piezoelectric layer is a “film”. Richter, however, teaches providing a piezoelectric layer in the form of a film (Para 32 – “the piezoelectric elements 22,24,26 […] may be formed on the membrane by a screen print or other thick film techniques”) for the purpose of attaching the piezoelectric layer to the membrane (Para 32); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending thin piezoelectric layer to be formed as a film for the purpose of attaching the piezoelectric layer to the membrane (Para 32).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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
1 See Para 70 of PG PUB 2010/0178824 to Stark et al. as evidence of this characteristic of silicon.
2 See Para 70 of PG PUB 2010/0178824 to Stark et al. as evidence of this characteristic of silicon.
Prosecution Insights