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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “first sensor and second sensors” appears to be in error for “a first sensor and a second sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “first and second wafers” appears to be in error for “a first wafer and a second wafer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 5, 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the inlet port and outlet port” appears to be in error for “the inlet port and the outlet port”.
“the inlet port, chamber and outlet port” appears to be in error for “the inlet port, the chamber and the outlet port”.
“the inlet port or outlet port” appears to be in error for “the inlet port or the outlet port”.
“the first sensor and second sensor” appears to be in error for “the first sensor and the second sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-13 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. In claim 9, line 9, “via inlet and outlet ports” is indefinite because it is unclear if these are the same or different from the previously defined inlet and outlet ports.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0123420 (Richter) in view of US 2017/0159650 (hereinafter ‘650).
Regarding claim 1-2, 9-10, Richter teaches a MEMS micropump (Fig 1, para 32-40) comprising: a pump section including a chamber that is configured to increase and decrease in volume as fluid is received and released from the chamber, respectively (chamber 42; para 38-40) and an actuator for changing the volume within the chamber (actuator 24, 22, 26); a first valve section including an inlet port communicating with the chamber to receive the fluid (first valve section 62 with inlet port at the end); a second valve section including an outlet port communicating with the chamber to release the fluid from the chamber (second valve section 64 with outlet port at the end); first and second wafers configured to define the chamber and enable it to communicate with the inlet port and outlet port and define a fluid pathway between the inlet port, chamber and outlet port (first wafer 10, second wafer 30; para 32-40), wherein the first wafer is configured as a membrane that deforms in response to actuation of the actuator creating a pressure difference within the chamber as it increases and decreases in volume, thereby moving fluid into or out of the chamber via the inlet and outlet ports, respectively (para 34-40; membrane sections 12, 14, and 16 move toward and away from the second wafer 30 to pump fluid); and a third wafer joined to the second wafer (third wafer 50), wherein the second and third wafers define channels that communicate with the chamber and the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 1; channels 32, 34 in the second wafer; channels 54, 56 in the third wafer).
Richter fails to teach first sensor and second sensors, in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, for detecting abnormalities in fluid flow within the fluid pathway and for sensing flow or pressure and the third wafer configured to integrate the first sensor and second sensor into the inlet port and the outlet port, respectively. However, ‘650 teaches first sensor and second sensors, in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, for detecting abnormalities in fluid flow within the fluid pathway and for sensing flow or pressure and the third wafer configured to integrate the first sensor and second sensor into the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 3, para 97-109; first sensor 110, 112 at the inlet, second sensor 106, 108 at the outlet measure flow rate and detect faults; para 15 – sensors may sense pressure difference at the inlet and outlet ports, and thereby would be integrated into the inlet and outlet ports). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a first sensor and second sensors, in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, for detecting abnormalities in fluid flow within the fluid pathway and for sensing flow or pressure and the third wafer configured to integrate the first sensor and second sensor into the inlet port and the outlet port, respectively in order to detect faults/abnormalities in the flow, as taught by ‘650. It is noted that “integrate” is construed as operatively couple to because Applicant’s sensors 132 and 134 are positioned out of the inlet and outlet ports as shown in the figures; alternatively, the inlet and outlet ports may include the wall sections including the sensors.
Regarding claims 3-4, Richter in view of ‘650 teaches the first and second sensors are configured to sense flow and/or pressure in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports and the first and second sensors are configured to sense pressure in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports to measure flow across the MEMS micropump (‘650 para 15, 51-52, 108-109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the first and second sensors are configured to sense flow and/or pressure in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports and the first and second sensors are configured to sense pressure in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports to measure flow across the MEMS micropump in order to dose the correct amounts and detect faults, as taught by ‘650.
Regarding claims 8, 13, Richter in view of ‘650 teaches the actuator includes a piezoelectric device that actuates in response to an electrical signal causing the first wafer to deflect (Richter para 36, 40-45) and the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection (‘650 para 158; “for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection” is a statement of intended use; it has been held that “a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R-1]; in this case, the prior art teaches the structural limitation – the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection in order to sense flow rate, as taught by ‘650. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection, yields predictable results (pressure and flow rate detection).
Claim(s) 5-7, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0123420 (Richter) in view of US 2017/0159650 (hereinafter ‘650), and further in view of US 2019/0250055 (Walsh).
Regarding claims 5, 11, Richter in view of ‘650 fails to teach the third wafer includes first and second apertures in proximity to the inlet port or outlet port for receiving the first and second sensors and for sensing flow and/or pressure at the inlet port or the outlet port. However, Walsh teaches that a wafer may include apertures for receiving the first and second sensors and for sensing flow and/or pressure (Fig 3E, para 23-26, 34; sensors 210b are embedded in apertures in the wafer layer 311). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to the third wafer include first and second apertures in proximity to the inlet port or outlet port for receiving the first and second sensors and for sensing flow and/or pressure at the inlet port or the outlet port, as taught by Walsh. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the third wafer includes first and second apertures in proximity to the inlet port or outlet port for receiving the first and second sensors and for sensing flow and/or pressure at the inlet port or the outlet port, yields predictable results (pressure and flow rate detection).
Regarding claims 6-7, 12-13, Richter in view of ‘650 teaches the third wafer includes first and second sections in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, each of the first and second sections function as a membrane that is configured to deflect in response to flow or pressure changes, wherein the first and second sections are configured as a reduction in width as compared to a width of the third wafer (‘650, para 55, 108, 136; pressure sensor membrane; membranes implicitly deflect with flow/pressure change; Fig 3, the width of each of the first and second sections 110, 106 – the width dimension construed as extending left to right in Fig 3 - is reduced compared to a width of the third wafer – e.g. the third wafer of the micropump 101 comprising edge portion 102b), and the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection (as discussed above). However, even if ‘650 did not teach first and second sections in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, each of the first and second sections function as a membrane that is configured to deflect in response to flow or pressure changes, wherein the first and second sections are configured as a reduction in width as compared to a width of the third wafer, the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection, Walsh teaches that a wafer may include first and second sections in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, each of the first and second sections function as a membrane that is configured to deflect in response to flow or pressure changes, wherein the first and second sections are configured as a reduction in width as compared to a width of the third wafer (Fig 3E, para 23-25; membrane sections 202a and 202b have reduced width relative to the wafer 301; width can be measured either left to right or up and down in Fig 3E), the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection (para 5, 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide first and second sections in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, each of the first and second sections function as a membrane that is configured to deflect in response to flow or pressure changes, wherein the first and second sections are configured as a reduction in width as compared to a width of the third wafer, the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection, in order to measure pressure and flow rate, as taught by ‘650 and Walsh. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, first and second sections in proximity to the inlet and outlet ports respectively, each of the first and second sections function as a membrane that is configured to deflect in response to flow or pressure changes, wherein the first and second sections are configured as a reduction in width as compared to a width of the third wafer, the first and second sensors include piezoelectric material or piezoresistors or capacitive sensors for creating an electrical signal with membrane deflection, yields predictable results (pressure and flow rate detection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10286144 teaches a micropump with membrane sensors (4, 13, Fig 1). US 2011/0264033 teaches a membrane pressure sensor positioned in different locations of a drug delivery device (para 36, Fig 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741