CTNF 18/446,947 CTNF 95663 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Status Claims 1-12 are pending, with claims 1-4 being examined, and claims 5-12 deemed withdrawn. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 12/23/2024, 5/26/2025, 9/15/2025, and 5/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-4 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pump chamber diaphragm" in Ln. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “a pump chamber diaphragm of the micropump”. Claims 2-4 are rejected as depending on a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Ishizaki et al. (Translation of JP Pub. No. 2020-200808; hereinafter Ishizaki) . Regarding claim 1, Ishizaki discloses a continuous flow micropump system actuated by pneumatic pressure (Pg. 4 Last Para., Pg. 5 4 th Para., Pg. 7 1 st Para., see Fig. 2a) . The system comprises an electronically variable pressure regulator to allow for a controllable pressure signal on a pump chamber diaphragm of the micropump (Pg. 4 4 th Para.-Pg. 6 Last Para., see Fig. 2a at controller 7, which controls solenoid valves 6a and 6b to control fluid flow through the system including diaphragm 3) . Further, with regards to the system being a continuous flow micropump system, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Regarding claim 2, Ishizaki discloses the micropump system of claim 1, wherein the electronically variable pressure regulator comprises a current or voltage input that is a set point for a proportional pressure output (Pg. 4 4 th Para.-Pg. 6 Last Para., see Fig. 2a at controller 7, which is electric, and controls solenoid valves 6a and 6b to control fluid flow through the system including diaphragm 3. The solenoid valves are activated by a current or voltage input, and will output a pressure output to control fluid flow through the system, which can be considered under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a proportional pressure output) . Regarding claim 3, Ishizaki discloses the micropump system of claim 1 wherein the electronically variable pressure regulator relies on feedback provided by a pressure sensor monitoring the electronically variable pressure regulator's output pneumatic pressure (Pg. 4 4 th Para.-Pg. 6 Last Para., particularly at pressure sensor 532) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Pub. No. 2003/0095870; already of record on the IDS received 12/23/2024) in view of Ishizaki . Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a continuous flow pump system actuated by pneumatic pressure ([0036]) . The system comprises an electronically variable pressure regulator to allow for a controllable pressure signal on a pump chamber diaphragm of the pump ([0002]-[0003], [0031]-[0036], see Figs. 1, 2 at microprocessor 42, which controls solenoid valves 48 to change pressure in pump diaphragm 30) . Park fails to explicitly disclose that the pump is a micropump. Ishizaki is in the analogous field of diaphragm pumps (Ishizaki Pg. 1 1 st Para.) , and teaches a micropump (Ishizaki; Pg. 4 Last Para., Pg. 7 1 st Para.) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump in the system of Park to be a micropump as in Ishizaki, as where the only difference between the prior art and a claimed system is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The motivation would have been to provide a pump suitable for dispensing fluid quantities in small amounts as desired. Further, with regards to the system being a continuous flow micropump system, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Regarding claim 2, modified Park discloses the micropump system of claim 1, wherein the electronically variable pressure regulator comprises a current or voltage input that is a set point for a proportional pressure output (Park; [0002]-[0003], [0031]-[0036], see Figs. 1, 2 at microprocessor 42, which controls solenoid valves 48 to change pressure in pump diaphragm 30. The solenoid valves are activated by a current or voltage input, and will output a pressure output to control fluid flow through the system, which can be considered under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a proportional pressure output) . Regarding claim 3, modified Park discloses the micropump system of claim 1 wherein the electronically variable pressure regulator relies on feedback provided by a pressure sensor monitoring the electronically variable pressure regulator's output pneumatic pressure (Park; [0031]-[0036], particularly at pressure sensor 44) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen et al. (Translation of JP Pub. No. 2019-22683; hereinafter Kamen) in view of Ishizaki . Regarding claim 1, Kamen discloses a continuous flow pump system actuated by pneumatic pressure (Pg. 22 2 nd to Last Para., see Fig. 4) . The system comprises an electronically variable pressure regulator to allow for a controllable pressure signal on a pump chamber diaphragm of the pump (Pg. 22 2 nd to Last Para.-Pg. 24 1 st Para., see Fig. 4 at electronic controller 49, which controls positive pressure gas reservoir 51 and negative pressure gas reservoir 52 and their corresponding pressure transducers) . Kamen fails to explicitly disclose that the pump is a micropump. Ishizaki is in the analogous field of diaphragm pumps (Ishizaki Pg. 1 1 st Para.) , and teaches a micropump (Ishizaki; Pg. 4 Last Para., Pg. 7 1 st Para.) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump in the system of Kamen to be a micropump as in Ishizaki, as where the only difference between the prior art and a claimed system is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The motivation would have been to provide a pump suitable for dispensing fluid quantities in small amounts as desired. Further, with regards to the system being a continuous flow micropump system, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Regarding claim 2, modified Kamen discloses the micropump system of claim 1, wherein the electronically variable pressure regulator comprises a current or voltage input that is a set point for a proportional pressure output (Kamen; Pg. 22 2 nd to Last Para.-Pg. 24 1 st Para., see Fig. 4 at electronic controller 49, which controls positive pressure gas reservoir 51 and negative pressure gas reservoir 52 and their corresponding pressure transducers. The pressure reservoirs are activated by a current or voltage input from the electronic controller 49, and will output a pressure output to control fluid flow through the system, which can be considered under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a proportional pressure output) . Regarding claim 3, modified Kamen discloses the micropump system of claim 1 wherein the electronically variable pressure regulator relies on feedback provided by a pressure sensor monitoring the electronically variable pressure regulator's output pneumatic pressure (Kamen Pg. 22 2 nd to Last Para.-Pg. 24 1 st Para., particularly at pressure transducers 44, which measure the pressure in the working chamber, positive pressure reservoir, and negative pressure reservoir) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaki as applied to claim s 1-3 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0060143) . Regarding claim 4, Ishizaki discloses the micropump system of claim 3. Ishizaki fails to explicitly disclose that the electronically variable pressure regulator has an internal PID controller that utilizes output pneumatic pressure feedback to provide a precise output pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions. Ding is in the analogous field of apparatuses for providing fluid flow (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0042]) . Ding teaches an internal PID controller that utilizes pressure feedback to provide a precise pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions (Ding; [0002]- [0006], [0008]-[0009]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ishizaki with the teachings of Ding so that the electronically variable pressure regulator has an internal PID controller that utilizes output pneumatic pressure feedback to provide a precise output pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions, as Ding teaches that PID controllers can be used to compare a measured value to a desired value, and manipulate one or more controlled variables to reduce the error (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0008]-[0009]) , thereby ensuring that the micropump system operates as desired . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Ishizaki as applied to claim s 1-3 above, and further in view of Ding . Regarding claim 4, modified Park discloses the micropump system of claim 3. Modified Park fails to explicitly disclose that the electronically variable pressure regulator has an internal PID controller that utilizes output pneumatic pressure feedback to provide a precise output pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions. Ding is in the analogous field of apparatuses for providing fluid flow (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0042]) . Ding teaches an internal PID controller that utilizes pressure feedback to provide a precise pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0008]-[0009]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Park with the teachings of Ding so that the electronically variable pressure regulator has an internal PID controller that utilizes output pneumatic pressure feedback to provide a precise output pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions, as Ding teaches that PID controllers can be used to compare a measured value to a desired value, and manipulate one or more controlled variables to reduce the error (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0008]-[0009]) , thereby ensuring that the micropump system operates as desired . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen in view of Ishizaki as applied to claim s 1-3 above, and further in view of Ding . Regarding claim 4, modified Kamen discloses the micropump system of claim 3. Modified Kamen fails to explicitly disclose that the electronically variable pressure regulator has an internal PID controller that utilizes output pneumatic pressure feedback to provide a precise output pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions. Ding is in the analogous field of apparatuses for providing fluid flow (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0042]) . Ding teaches an internal PID controller that utilizes pressure feedback to provide a precise pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0008]-[0009]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Kamen with the teachings of Ding so that the electronically variable pressure regulator has an internal PID controller that utilizes output pneumatic pressure feedback to provide a precise output pressure by continuously adjusting internal valve positions, as Ding teaches that PID controllers can be used to compare a measured value to a desired value, and manipulate one or more controlled variables to reduce the error (Ding; [0002]-[0006], [0008]-[0009]) , thereby ensuring that the micropump system operates as desired. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm. 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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. /JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 2 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 4 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 5 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 6 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 7 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 9 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 10 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 11 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 12 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/446,947 Page 13 Art Unit: 1798
Prosecution Insights