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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the membrane positioned on the fluid delivery side of the powered transducer recited in claims 1 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the fluid delivery side” in line 5 should read --a fluid delivery side.-- Appropriate correction is required. Same objection applies to claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the droplet delivery device comprising a membrane positioned on the fluid delivery side of the powered transducer between the powered transducer and the ejector plate as amended in claim 1. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to claim 20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germinario et al. (US 9,956,360. Germinario hereinafter) in view of Hunter et al. (US 20220401661. Hunter hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Germinario discloses a droplet delivery device (Figs. 1-25B) comprising: an ejector plate (108, 808) having a solid outer area with no holes surrounding an inner active area that includes holes (108a, 808a), a powered transducer (106) on the fluid delivery (under) side of the ejector plate (Fig. 1).
Germinario fails to disclose a membrane positioned on the fluid delivery side of the powered transducer between the powered transducer and the ejector plate.
However, Hunter a droplet delivery device (Figs. 1A-114) comprising: an ejector plate (Figs. 2 and 3) having a solid outer area with no holes surrounding an inner active area that includes holes (mesh of 22), a powered transducer (26. Fig. 1B) on the fluid delivery side of the ejector plate, a membrane (25) positioned on the fluid delivery side of the powered transducer between the powered transducer and the ejector plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of adding a membrane between the powered transducer and the ejector plate, as taught by Hunter, to Germinario’s device, in order to provide additional “push mode” vibration of the droplet ([0177]-[0179]).
With respect to claim 3, Germinario’s device modified by Hunter’s membrane, Germinario further discloses wherein the powered transducer is a piezoelectric transducer (piezoelectric actuator 106 and Col. 13, line 31).
With respect to claim 4, Germinario’s device modified by Hunter’s membrane, Germinario further discloses wherein the ejector plate includes a raised feature (domed or half-spherical shape. Col. 21, lines 10-15 and Fig. 8B).
With respect to claim 5, Germinario’s device modified by Hunter’s membrane, Germinario further discloses wherein the raised feature has a dome shape (domed or half-spherical shape. Col. 21, lines 10-15 and Fig. 8B).
With respect to claim 11, Germinario’s device modified by Hunter’s membrane, Germinario further discloses wherein the droplet delivery device includes a raised feature (domed or half-spherical shape. Col. 21, lines 10-15 and Fig. 8B).
With respect to claim 12, Germinario’s device modified by Hunter’s membrane, Germinario further discloses wherein the raised feature has a dome shape (domed or half-spherical shape. Col. 21, lines 10-15 and Fig. 8B).
With respect to claims 13-16, 18 and 19, Germinario’s device modified by Hunter’s membrane, Germinario further discloses wherein the inner active area and solid outer area are concentric *Fig. 8A).
With respect to claim 20, Germinario a droplet delivery device (Figs. 1-25B) comprising: an ejector plate (108, 808) with a circular inner active area having a plurality of holes (108a, 808a) and an outer solid ring area without holes surrounding the inner active area (Fig. 8A); and a powered transducer (piezoelectric actuator 106) on the fluid delivery (under) side of the ejector plate (Fig. 1) configured to (capable of) vibrate the ejector plate.
Germinario fails to disclose a membrane positioned on the fluid delivery side of the powered transducer between the powered transducer and the ejector plate.
However, Hunter a droplet delivery device (Figs. 1A-114) comprising: an ejector plate (Figs. 2 and 3) having a solid outer area with no holes surrounding an inner active area that includes holes (mesh of 22), a powered transducer (26. Fig. 1B) on the fluid delivery side of the ejector plate, a membrane (25) positioned on the fluid delivery side of the powered transducer between the powered transducer and the ejector plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of adding a membrane between the powered transducer and the ejector plate, as taught by Hunter, to Germinario’s device, in order to provide additional “push mode” vibration of the droplet ([0177]-[0179]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 November 29, 2025