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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s previous election without traverse of Species 6, Fig 11 is noted.
Regarding Claim 6: it is noted that claim 6 requires: “wherein the thin portion is provided at the second principal surface”, however only the non-elected embodiment of Species 7 (Fig 12B) has the thin portion 219G provided at the second principal surface 202, as required by claim 6, Accordingly, claims 6 & 20 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
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 limitations of:
“wherein a width and a depth of the recess are varied” (Claim 3) 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 Interpretation
Given the disclosure at ¶0053 of the SPEC, it is understood that the claimed distance between the rotational center and the thin portion (i.e. o21 and 219 in Fig 11) is understood to be defined as the distance between the center o21 and the widthwise center of the thin portion 219. Additionally given the disclosure at ¶0054 of the SPEC which states:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the term “about” in this context is defined by the graph of Fig 5 and the locations where the normalized distance from center (the x-axis/abscissa of Fig 5) coincides with the service life of the actuator being twice that of the known actuator (the y-axis/ordinate of Fig 5) retaliative to the articulated values of 0.4 and 0.9. Accordingly, with this direction in hand, it is understood that the term about in claim 1 Line 18, means within expected measurement errors of the articulated values of 0.4 and 0.9 (e.g. 1 mm / 0.04 inches).
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.
Claims 3-5 11-12 and 17-19 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.
Regarding Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation "the recess" in Line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination the language of claim 3 Line 18-21 will be read as:
--plate, the thin portion having a lesser plate thickness compared with the central region, wherein the thin portion is defined by a recess formed from at least one of the first principal surface and the second principal surface, and wherein a width and a depth of the recess are varied.--.
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-5, 10-12, & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata US 2021/0095659 in view of Smiley USPN 4231287.
PNG
media_image2.png
1110
1110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 2 & Fig 3 of Kawabata US 2021/0095659 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 1: Kawabata US 2021/0095659 discloses the limitations: An actuator (the actuator is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising: a main plate (20,21 Figs 1-3, ¶0029-¶0032) having a first principal surface (first principal surface = 202) and a second principal surface (second principal surface = 201), and having a rotationally symmetrical shape (as seen in Figs 2-3, plate 20,21 is circular and has a rotationally symmetrical shape as claimed) as viewed in plan in a direction normal to the first principal surface and the second principal surface (as shown in Fig 3); a frame (22, ¶0029, ¶0032-¶0033, Figs 1-2) disposed at a position outside a peripheral edge of the main plate (as seen in Annotated Fig 2 & Fig 3 of Kawabata US 2021/0095659 (Attached Figure A) above, frame 22 is located outside the peripheral edge as claimed); a connection member 24 connected to the peripheral edge of the main plate and to the frame (Attached Figure A, ¶0034), the connection member holding the main plate so as to enable the main plate to vibrate relative to the frame (connection member 24 supports the main plate 20,21 so it can vibrate as shown in Fig 4A, ¶0036, ¶0048-¶0049); and a piezoelectric element (30, ¶0029-¶0030, ¶0039-¶0040, Attached Figure A) disposed on the first principal surface of the main plate (Attached Figure A), a circumferential shape of the piezoelectric element being smaller than the main plate as viewed in plan (as seen in Fig 1 the circular shape of element 30 is smaller than the circular shape of elements 20,21, thus a circumferential shape of the piezoelectric element 30 would inherently be smaller than the main plate 20,21 as viewed in plan as claimed); a rotation center of the main plate (Attached Figure A), and. a central region of the main plate (Attached Figure A) positioned in the vicinity of the rotation center (Attached Figure A). Kawabata US 2021/0095659 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the main plate includes a low elastic modulus region, as viewed in plan, overlapping the piezoelectric element and including neither the peripheral edge nor a rotation center of the main plate, and the low elastic modulus region has an elastic modulus smaller than an elastic modulus of a central region of the main plate positioned in the vicinity of the rotation center, wherein the low elastic modulus region comprises a thin portion, and a distance between the rotation center and the thin portion is between about 0.4 times and about 0.9 times a distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge. The prior art of Smiley which is directed to the construction of a diaphragm used in a piezoelectric pump (title, abstract, Column 2 Line 28-30) like Kawabata, is noted.
PNG
media_image3.png
868
1108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 & Figure 4 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure B)
PNG
media_image4.png
440
802
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure C)
PNG
media_image5.png
532
862
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure D)
However, Smiley USPN 4231287 does disclose the limitations: wherein the main plate (main plate = 30,34 see Annotated Figure 2 & Figure 4 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure B) above) includes a low elastic modulus region (low elastic modulus region = region generally indicated by element 58 in Fig 4 which has edges 42 & 44), as viewed in plan, overlapping the piezoelectric element (the piezoelectric element = piezoelectric stack 18 shown in Fig 4, Column 2 Line 40-51, since Fig 4 shows edges 42,44 of the low elastic modulus region in Fig 4 vertically below element 18, element 18 would still overlap the low elastic modulus region in the plan view of Fig 2) and including neither the peripheral edge nor a rotation center of the main plate (as seen in Attached Figure B, the low elastic modulus region in Fig 4 does not include either the peripheral edge 36 or the identified rotational center of the main plate as claimed) the low elastic modulus region (region generally indicated by element 58 in Fig 4 which has edges 42 & 44) has an elastic modulus smaller than an elastic modulus of a central region of the main plate positioned in the vicinity of the rotation center (central region of the main plate = part of the main plate at the rotational center identified in Attached Figure B; since the low elastic modulus region in the prior art of Smiley has a reduced thickness at 46a it would inherently have a smaller elastic modulus than the central region of the main plate which has a larger thickness as understood from Attached Figure B; also the low elastic modulus region in the prior art of Smiley addresses the language of the claim within the same confines as Figures 8A-8B & Figure 11 of the instant application), wherein the low elastic modulus region comprises a thin portion (thin portion = 46a, see Attached Figure B; also see Annotated Figure 2 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure C) above), and a distance between the rotation center and the thin portion (radial distance between the articulated rotational center and the widthwise center of the thin portion illustrated in Annotated Figure 2 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure D) above) is between about 0.4 times and about 0.9 times a distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge (distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge = radial distance between the articulated rotational center and the peripheral edge illustrated in Attached Figure D; as seen in Attached Figure D the radial location of the thin portion is visually understood to be greater than 50% and less than 90% of the radial distance to the peripheral edge; accordingly the prior art of Smiley teaches that the thin portion (is located) between about 0.4 times and about 0.9 times a distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge as claimed).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second principal surface (201) of Kawabata US 2021/0095659 with the circular downward facing groove 58 having circular edges 42 and 44 surrounding the rotational center (Attached Figure B) such that it is overlapped by the piezo (Kawabata – piezoelectric element 30 | Smiley – piezoelectric stack 18, Attached Figure B) as taught by Smiley USPN 4231287 in order to provide a strong and low inertia restoring force to the piezoelectric actuator (Column 2 Line 4-7, Line 45-48, Column 4 Line 34-36). In the combination of prior art groove 58 of Smiley would surround the rotational center of Kawabata in Attached Figure A, such that it is overlapped by the piezo (Kawabata – piezoelectric element 30, Attached Figure A). Additionally, it is noted that due to the substrate being thinner where the thin portion/low elastic modulus region is located, this part of the substrate will inherently have a lower elastic modulus than the thicker part of the substrate.
Regarding Claim 2: Kawabata US 2021/0095659 as modified by Smiley USPN 4231287 does disclose the limitations: wherein the thin portion has a lesser plate thickness compared with the central region (Smiley - as seen in Attached Figure B the thin portion 46a has a reduced thickness and is located between edges 42 & 44; in the combination of prior art the rotational center of the main plate 20,21 of Kawabata would have the same thickness as what is shown in Attached Figure A & the low elastic modulus region (58 of Smiley) would be overlapped by the piezoelectric element 30 & located near the outer periphery of the piezoelectric element 30 as shown in the arrangement taught in Fig 4 of Smiley).
Regarding Claim 3: Kawabata US 2021/0095659 discloses the limitations: An actuator (the actuator is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising: a main plate (20,21 Figs 1-3, ¶0029-¶0032) having a first principal surface (first principal surface = 202) and a second principal surface (second principal surface = 201), and having a rotationally symmetrical shape (as seen in Figs 2-3, plate 20,21 is circular and has a rotationally symmetrical shape as claimed) as viewed in plan in a direction normal to the first principal surface and the second principal surface (as shown in Fig 3); a frame (22, ¶0029, ¶0032-¶0033, Figs 1-2) disposed at a position outside a peripheral edge of the main plate (as seen in Annotated Fig 2 & Fig 3 of Kawabata US 2021/0095659 (Attached Figure A) above, frame 22 is located outside the peripheral edge as claimed); a connection member 24 connected to the peripheral edge of the main plate and to the frame (Attached Figure A, ¶0034), the connection member holding the main plate so as to enable the main plate to vibrate relative to the frame (connection member 24 supports the main plate 20,21 so it can vibrate as shown in Fig 4A, ¶0036, ¶0048-¶0049); and a piezoelectric element (30, ¶0029-¶0030, ¶0039-¶0040, Attached Figure A) disposed on the first principal surface of the main plate (Attached Figure A), a circumferential shape of the piezoelectric element being smaller than the main plate as viewed in plan (as seen in Fig 1 the circular shape of element 30 is smaller than the circular shape of elements 20,21, thus a circumferential shape of the piezoelectric element 30 would inherently be smaller than the main plate 20,21 as viewed in plan as claimed); a rotation center of the main plate (Attached Figure A), and. a central region of the main plate (Attached Figure A) positioned in the vicinity of the rotation center (Attached Figure A). Kawabata US 2021/0095659 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the main plate includes a low elastic modulus region, as viewed in plan, overlapping the piezoelectric element and including neither the peripheral edge nor a rotation center of the main plate, and the low elastic modulus region has an elastic modulus smaller than an elastic modulus of a central region of the main plate positioned in the vicinity of the rotation center, wherein the low elastic modulus region comprises a thin portion in the main plate, the thin portion having a lesser plate thickness compared with the central region, wherein the thin portion is defined by a recess formed from at least one of the first principal surface and the second principal surface, and wherein a width and a depth of the recess are varied.
PNG
media_image6.png
690
978
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 & Figure 6 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure B’)
PNG
media_image7.png
440
802
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure C’)
PNG
media_image8.png
680
1000
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure E)
However, Smiley USPN 4231287 does disclose the limitations: wherein the main plate (main plate = 30,34 see Annotated Figure 2 & Figure 6 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure B’) above) includes a low elastic modulus region (low elastic modulus region = region in Fig 6 which has edges 42 & 44), as viewed in plan, overlapping the piezoelectric element (the piezoelectric element = piezoelectric stack 18 shown in Fig 6, Column 2 Line 40-51, since Fig 6 shows edges 42,44 of the low elastic modulus region in Fig 6 vertically below element 18, element 18 would still overlap the low elastic modulus region in the plan view of Fig 2) and including neither the peripheral edge nor a rotation center of the main plate (as seen in Attached Figure B’, the low elastic modulus region in Fig 6 does not include either the peripheral edge 36 or the identified rotational center of the main plate as claimed) the low elastic modulus region (region in Fig 6 which has edges 42 & 44) has an elastic modulus smaller than an elastic modulus of a central region of the main plate positioned in the vicinity of the rotation center (central region of the main plate = part of the main plate at the rotational center identified in Attached Figure B’; since the low elastic modulus region in the prior art of Smiley has a reduced thickness at 46c it would inherently have a smaller elastic modulus than the central region of the main plate which has a larger thickness as understood from Attached Figure B’; also the low elastic modulus region in the prior art of Smiley addresses the language of the claim within the same confines as Figures 8A-8B & Figure 11 of the instant application), wherein the low elastic modulus region comprises a thin portion (thin portion = 46c, see Attached Figure B’; also see Annotated Figure 2 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure C’) above) in the main plate (see Attached Figure B’), the thin portion has a lesser plate thickness compared with the central region (as seen in Attached Figure B’ the thin portion 46c has a reduced thickness and is located between edges 42 & 44; in the combination of prior art the rotational center of the main plate 20,21 of Kawabata would have the same thickness as what is shown in Attached Figure A & the low elastic modulus region (taught by Smiley) would be overlapped by the piezoelectric element 30 of Kawabata and located near the outer periphery of the piezoelectric element 30 as shown in the arrangement taught in Fig 6 of Smiley), wherein the thin portion 46c is defined by a recess (i.e. groove between 42,44; as seen in Attached Figure B’ the groove is defined by a recess from the identified second principal surface) formed from the second principal surface (Attached Figure B’, also see Annotated Figure 6 of Smiley USPN 4231287 (Attached Figure E) above), and wherein a width and depth of the recess are varied (as seen in Attached Figure E and figures 9 and 10 of Smiley depicting a varied width, the identified depth of the recess and the identified width of the recess each have different lengths depending on where width/depth dimensions are measured and/or the identified depth of the recess and the identified width of the recess each have different lengths depending on the position of the main plate relative to the frame during the operation of the pump).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second principal surface (201) of Kawabata US 2021/0095659 with the circular recess defined by member 46c & edges 42 and 44 surrounding the rotational center (Attached Figure B’) such that it is overlapped by the piezo (Kawabata – piezoelectric element 30 | Smiley – piezoelectric stack 18, Attached Figure B’) as taught by Smiley USPN 4231287 in order to provide a strong and low inertia restoring force to the piezoelectric actuator (Column 2 Line 4-7, Line 45-48, Column 4 Line 34-36). In the combination of prior art groove of Smiley would surround the rotational center of Kawabata in Attached Figure A, such that it is overlapped by the piezo (Kawabata – piezoelectric element 30, Attached Figure A).
Regarding Claim 4: Smiley USPN 4231287 does disclose the limitations: wherein the thin portion is disposed at multiple positions arranged in rotational symmetry with respect to a reference point positioned at the rotation center (as understood from Attached Figure B’ & Attached Figure C’, because the recess which defines the thin portion 46c has circular edges 42 & 44 which are centered on the identified reference point at the rotational center, the thin portion 46c is defined by a circular groove/ recess, and because of this the thin portion 46c is arranged at multiple radial points in the circumferential direction with respect to the reference point at the rotational center as shown in Attached Figure B’ & Attached Figure C’; additionally it is noted that the prior art addresses the language of the claim within the same confines as the instant application).
Regarding Claim 5: Smiley USPN 4231287 does disclose the limitations: wherein the thin portion has an annular shape with respect to a reference point positioned at the rotation center (as understood from Attached Figure B’ & Attached Figure C’, because the recess which defines the thin portion 46c has circular edges 42 & 44 which are centered on the identified reference point at the rotational center, the thin portion 46c is defined by a circular groove/ recess, and because of this the thin portion 46c has an annular shape with respect to the identified reference point positioned at the rotation center in Attached Figure B’).
Regarding Claims 11 & 12: Smiley USPN 4231287 does disclose the limitations: wherein the recess is provided at the second principal surface (as shown in Attached Figure B’ the recess is provided at the second principal surface).
Regarding Claims 10 & 16: Kawabata US 2021/0095659 does disclose the limitations: an opposing plate 40 opposing the second principal surface of the main plate (Attached Figure A), the connection member (24, Attached Figure A), and the frame (22, Figure 2) and having a throughhole (400, Attached Figure A) at a position opposing the main plate (Attached Figure A); and a side-wall member (50, ¶0029) connected to the opposing plate and to the frame (¶0044-¶0046, Attached Figure A) in such a manner that the side-wall member 50, the main plate (20,21), the connection member 24, the frame 22, and the opposing plate 40 form a pump chamber (100, ¶0046, Figure 2).
Regarding Claims 17, 18, & 19: Kawabata US 2021/0095659 does disclose the limitations: an opposing plate 40 opposing the second principal surface of the main plate (Attached Figure A), the connection member (24, Attached Figure A), and the frame (22, Figure 2) and having a throughhole (400, Attached Figure A) at a position opposing the main plate (Attached Figure A); and a side-wall member (50, ¶0029) connected to the opposing plate and to the frame (¶0044-¶0046, Attached Figure A) in such a manner that the side-wall member 50, the main plate (20,21), the connection member 24, the frame 22, and the opposing plate 40 form a pump chamber (100, ¶0046, Figure 2).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7 ¶5 Line 1-3: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 by arguing that the prior art does not teach or render obvious the language of: “a distance between the rotation center and the thin portion is between about 0.4 times and about 0.9 times a distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge” as required in claim 1.
--Examiner disagrees. The structure of Smiley in the combination of Kawabata as modified by Smiley teaches that the thin portion (i.e. the circular thin portion defined by element 46a, as understood from Fig 4 & Fig 2) is physically located within the claimed range. Additionally, one can clearly see how the structure of the thin portion 46a of Smiley is located between about 0.4 times and about 0.9 times the radial distance (i.e. a distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge 36 in Figs 2-4) from Attached Figure D in the office action above. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 7 ¶5 Line 3-11: Applicant traverses a rejection different from the one made by the examiner, Applicant asserts that Smiley is silent regarding a distance of the thin portion from the rotation center, and that Smiley is silent regarding a distance from the rotation center to the peripheral edge, and asserts that because of this the prior art does not make obvious the language of: “a distance between the rotation center and the thin portion is between about 0.4 times and about 0.9 times a distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge” as required in claim 1.
--Arguments not persuasive. With regards to the prior art of Smiley, and Figure 2 & Figure 4 of Smiley, it is noted that applicant is not claiming the length of either the distance of the thin portion from the rotational center OR the distance of the peripheral edge from the rotational center. Rather Applicant is claiming that the distance of the thin portion from the rotational center is between 40% and 90% of the distance of the peripheral edge from the rotational center. Furthermore, it has been held that, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Additionally, it has been held that, the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
Accordingly, with these facts in mind, and with the fundamental knowledge of trigonometry, a PHOSITA can glean from Figures 2 & Figure 4 of Smiley that the structure of the thin portion 46a of Smiley is located between about 0.4 times and about 0.9 times the radial distance (i.e. a distance between the rotation center and the peripheral edge 36 in Figs 2-4) from Attached Figure D in the office action above.
Additionally regarding Applicants remarks (Page 7 Line 9-11) regarding what was discussed during the interview. The examiner notes that unfortunately, following further consideration of the prior art of Smiley, it was determined that Smiley did indeed teach the claimed range. Accordingly, since further modification beyond the art of Smiley was not required, the claimed range on its own was unable to define over the prior art of record.
Accordingly for the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 8 ¶1: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 3 by arguing that the prior art does not teach or render obvious the language of: “a width and a depth of the recess are varied” as recited in Claim 3.
--Examiner disagrees. As explained in the rejection above the prior art has a varied width and depth as claimed. Accordingly, applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paulus - USPN 2307066 – teaches that the relative size of the thin and thick portion of a diaphragm will depend on needed pumping requirements
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746