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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "MMS". It is not explicitly defined in the Specification. It is assumed to mean micro-mechanical structures.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the MEMS" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed to mean “MMS” (micro-mechanical structures).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 18, 19, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by O’Connor et al (20030116738).
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor, Fig. 6A-6D, discloses an MMS comprising: a first layer 145 comprising a first opening 154 for letting pass a fluid; a second layer 143 arranged opposite the first layer 145 and comprising a second opening 151 for letting pass the fluid and forming, together with the first layer, at least a part of a layer stack comprising layers stacked in a stacking direction which is perpendicular to a substrate plane (plane of side of 143,144,145 parallel to the page) of the MMS; a cavity 153 arranged between the first layer 143 and the second layer 145; an element 152 arranged in the cavity and moveable along a direction in parallel to the substrate plane, which alternatingly comprises at least a first positioning (Fig 6D) and a second positioning (Fig 6C), wherein, in the first positioning, flow-through of the fluid is inhibited; and, in the second positioning, flow-through of the fluid through the cavity along the stacking direction is allowed.
As to claim 3, O’Connor, Fig. 6A-6D, discloses a first fluidic path (flow path between 154 to 151) is arranged between the first opening 154 and the second opening 151, implemented for reducing a fluid pressure (by letting fluid flow) at the first layer and blocked in the first positioning of the moveable element; wherein the MMS comprises a second fluidic path (flow path between 154 to 150) configured to reduce a fluid pressure at the second layer by transporting the fluid towards the first layer; wherein the moveable element or a further element moveable in parallel to the substrate plane is configured to inhibit at times and allow at times fluidic flow-through through the second fluidic path.
As to claim 4, the first opening 154 and the second opening 151 are arranged to be offset to each other when projected to the substrate plane; wherein the moveable element 152 is configured to at least partly sweep over, when changing from the first positioning to the second positioning, one among the first opening and the second opening; and not to sweep over the other opening (element 152 when moved horizontally from fig 6D position would sweep over only 151).
As to claim 5, the moveable element 152 is configured to subdivide the cavity into at least a first sub-cavity (portion of 153 right of 152) arranged at a first side of the moveable element 152 and a second sub-cavity (portion of 153 left of 152) arranged at a second side, which is opposite the first side; wherein the first sub-cavity (portion of 153 right of 152) is fluidically coupled to the first opening 154 and the moveable element 152 is configured to increase, when changing from the first positioning to the second positioning, a volume of the first sub-cavity (portion of 153 right of 152) until the first sub-cavity is fluidically coupled to the second opening 153 and allows flow-through of the fluid.
As to claim 18, the moveable element is formed to be active (made of magnetic material, Para 69) and for acquiring a drive signal (magnetic field); to perform, based on the drive signal, a change from the first positioning to the second positioning, or vice versa.
As to claim 19, an area size 154 of the first opening differs from an area size of the second opening 151 (drawings vividly show 154 larger that 151 in Fig 6C and 6A).
As to claim 22, the moveable element 152 is configured (when second positioning is consider to an intermediate position from Fig 6D with 151 partially open) to comprise, alternatingly, the first positioning (Fig 6D), the second positioning (intermediate opening position with 151 partially open) and a third positioning (Fig 6C), wherein the MMS is configured to let, in the third positioning, flow a higher amount of fluid through the cavity than in the second positioning (fully open p[position would have higher flow).
As to claim 23, O’Connor, Fig. 6A-6D, discloses a system comprising an MMS in accordance with claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephane (20140037481) in view of O’Connor et al (20030116738).
Regarding claim(s) 1, Stephane discloses an MMS comprising: a first layer 14 comprising a first opening 20 for letting pass a fluid; a second layer 6 arranged opposite the first layer and the first layer with a second opening 28 for letting pass the fluid and the second layer 6 forming, together with the first layer 14, at least a part of a layer stack comprising layers stacked in a stacking direction which is perpendicular to a substrate plane (vertical plane forming valving surface of 50) of the MMS; a cavity 22 arranged between the first layer 14 and the second layer 6; an element 50 arranged in the cavity and moveable along a direction in parallel to the substrate plane, which alternatingly comprises at least a first positioning (closed) and a second positioning (open), wherein, in the first positioning, flow-through of the fluid is inhibited; and, in the second positioning, flow-through of the fluid through the cavity along the stacking direction is allowed.
Stephane fails to discloses the second opening in the second layer opposite first layer. O’Connor, Fig. 6A-6D, discloses an MMS comprising: a first layer 145 comprising a first opening 154 for letting pass a fluid; a second layer 143 arranged opposite the first layer 145 and comprising a second opening 151 for letting pass the fluid and forming, together with the first layer, at least a part of a layer stack comprising layers stacked in a stacking direction which is perpendicular to a substrate plane (plane of side of 143,144,145 parallel to the page) of the MMS.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Stephane with second opening in the second layer as taught by O’Connor as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute discharge location yielding predictable results of providing an outlet connection.
As to claim 2, Stephane as modified discloses an overpressure valve (check valve formed by 50) and configured to move, with an overpressure at the first layer, the moveable element from the first positioning to the second positioning.
As to claim 6, Stephane as modified discloses that moveable element 50, in the first positioning, comprises a low-stress state (undeflected) of mechanical stress and is configured to comprise, in the second positioning, a high-stress state to change back from the second to the first positioning while reducing mechanical stress (when upstream pressure is low).
As to claim 7, Stephane as modified discloses that moveable element 50 is configured to change from the first positioning (closed) to the second positioning when applying a first pressure level (opening pressure) of the fluid at the first layer; and to change, when applying a second pressure level (below opening pressure) of the fluid at the first layer, back from the second positioning to the first positioning; wherein the first pressure level is greater than the second pressure level.
As to claim 9, Stephane as modified discloses that the moveable element 50 is configured to change to the second positioning (opening position) based on an increase in pressure of the fluid at the first layer and to remain in the second positioning with a decrease in pressure (when pressure decreases but remains at or above opening pressure), based on mechanical stress, until the second pressure level (below opening pressure) is reached.
As to claims 16 and 17, Stephane shows element as a deflection plate 50 but fails to disclose multiple layer deflection plate or mechanical stop extending into pathway to restrict motion of deflection plate. However, Official Notice is taken providing deflection plate as multiple layer plate or providing a mechanical stop extending into pathway to restrict motion of deflection plate, for the purpose of providing required strength of plate and to prevent excessive bending are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ deflection plate as multiple layer plate and a mechanical stop extending into pathway to restrict motion of deflection plate in the device of Stephane for the purpose of providing required strength of plate and to prevent excessive bending as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephane (20140037481) in view of O’Connor et al (20030116738) further in view of Sartori et al (FR 3007488 A1).
Stephane as modified moveable element 50 with a sensor element configured to provide a sensor signal which is associated to an opening state of the moveable element. Sartori teaches moveable element 10 with a sensor element 24 configured to provide a sensor signal which is associated to an opening state of the moveable element 10.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Stephane as modified with moveable element having a sensor element as taught by Sartori in order to provide valve monitoring means.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8, 10-15, 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights