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 .
This action is in response to an amendment filed on 06/08/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corson (US 11,627,418 B1).
As to Claim 1, Corson in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-13 as best illustrated by Fig.3A-3B disclose an actuation device (300) comprising:
a first actuation layer (305) including a plurality of first actuators (310, 320, 330) operable independently; and
a second actuation layer (305) provided on the first actuation layer, the second actuation layer including a plurality of second actuators (310, 320, 330) operable independently (Each layer 305 may include actuated transducers 320 and deformed transducers 330 such that transducers 310 may be actuated and/or deformed for each layer 305 independently from the other layer 305- see also Col.8, Line 22- Col.9, Line 5);
Although the first and second actuating layers with the plurality of first and second actuators respectively operating independently are thought as shown above, it doesn’t explicitly disclose the actuators operable within a first and a second frequency range, respectively, different from each other, however, this would have been an obvious modification/designer’s choice before the effective filing date of the instant application since the plurality of actuators of the respective actuation layers operate independently in order to optimize performance for specific tasks.
As to Claim 12, Corson in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-13 disclose a method comprising:
forming an actuation device (300), the actuation device comprising:
a first actuation layer (305) including a plurality of first actuators (310, 320, 330) operable independently; and
a second actuation layer (305) provided on the first actuation layer, the second actuation layer including a plurality of second actuators (310, 320, 330) operable independently (Each layer 305 may include actuated transducers 320 and deformed transducers 330 such that transducers 310 may be actuated and/or deformed for each layer 305 independently from the other layer 305- see also Col.8, Line 22- Col.9, Line 5); and
selectively delivering a current to one or more of the first actuators and the second actuators of the actuation device to actuate the actuation device (as illustrated in FIG. 3B, actuated electrodes 352 of actuated nodes 320 of the top layer 305 may cause deformation of deformed fluid channel 362 and deformed transducer 330 without requiring similar actuation in the bottom layer 305- see also Col.8, Line 22- Col.9, Line 5);
Although the first and second actuating layers with the plurality of first and second actuators respectively operating independently are thought as shown above, it doesn’t explicitly disclose the actuators operable within a first and a second frequency range, respectively, different from each other, however, this would have been an obvious modification/designer’s choice before the effective filing date of the instant application since the plurality of actuators of the respective actuation layers operate independently in order to optimize performance for specific tasks.
As to Claim 2, Corson disclose the actuation device of claim 1, wherein the first actuation layer is integrally formed with the second actuation layer as a one-piece monolithic structure (see Fig. 3A-3B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 and 13-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As to applicant’s argument (remarks 5-8) “…In the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, the Examiner concedes that Corson fails to teach or fairly suggest the features of original independent claims 1 and 12 regarding the second actuation layer including a plurality of second actuators operable within a second frequency range different from the first frequency range. Instead, the Examiner takes the position that "it would have been an obvious modification/designer's choice before the effective filing date of the instant application since the plurality of actuators of the respective actuation layers operate independently in order to optimize performance for specific tasks." …Applicant respectfully submits that it is not an obvious modification/designer's choice to modify Corson in the manner the Examiner asserts to teach the features of original independent claims 1 and 12. Specifically, Corson fails to teach or fairly suggest the features of original independent claims 1 and 12 regarding the second actuation layer including a plurality of second actuators operable within a second frequency range different from the first frequency range. Corson includes no teaching or suggestion to be modified to arrive at the claimed features of independent claims 1 and 12 and the Examiner's purported modification is impermissible hindsight…In view thereof, Applicant submits that none of the cited references, whether viewed singly or in combination, teach the claimed features as defined in independent claims 1 and 12. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn as independent claims 1 and 12 are believed to be allowable…”
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. The examiner would also like to emphasize that the claims are examined enlight of the specification using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as cited in the previous office action of record. In contrary to applicant’s argument, Corson teaches what is broadly claimed by the applicant in which each layer 305 may include actuated transducers 320 and deformed transducers 330 such that transducers 310 may be actuated and/or deformed for each layer 305 independently from the other layer 305 (see Col.8, Line 22- Col.9, Line 5). This clearly reads on what is claimed by applicants as the first and second actuating layers with the plurality of first and second actuators respectively operating independently. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In addition, it is thought by Coroson as shown in this office action and previous office action of record 04/30/2026, each layers are actuated and/or deformed independently and it would have been an obvious modification/designer’s choice before the effective filing date of the instant application to operate in a first and second frequency range since the plurality of actuators of the respective actuation layers operate independently in order to optimize performance for specific tasks. Hence, the claimed and argued limitations of claims 1, 2 and 12 remain rejected. In conclusion, applicants’ arguments/remarks filed on 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as shown above.
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 GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur).
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights