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 § 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) 1–4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (WO 2023228555 A1) in view of JP S6169461 U.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugita discloses a flow rate control device comprising: a piezo valve (10) including a diaphragm valve element (13) that is opened and closed by a piezo actuator (12); a strain sensor (15 and Para. 26) for detecting a displacement amount of the piezo actuator (12 and Para. 21, where the piezo actuator moves the diaphragm valve element); a control circuit (20) for receiving a detection signal of the strain sensor (15) and controlling a drive voltage of the piezo actuator (12) and discussed in Para. 29 but does not disclose the diaphragm valve element as metal. Additionally, Herz does not disclose wherein the control circuit is configured so as, by applying a positive drive voltage one or more times and then applying a negative drive voltage a plurality of times to the piezo actuator at a desired timing, to bring an amount of strain detected by the strain sensor close to zero when no drive voltage is applied to the piezo actuator.
JP S6169461 U which will be referred to as 9461 hence forward.
9461 discloses a metal diaphragm valve element (30) in order to provide an electro conduction material (Pg. 6, 2nd Para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a metal diaphragm valve element with the invention of Sugita, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. Here, Sugita is silent as to the type of material used for the metal diaphragm valve element. 9461 teaches the use of metal for the diaphragm. Both Sugita and 9461 perform the same action, open/closing the diaphragm valve element. As a result, it makes sense that a person having ordinary skill in the art would modify Sugita’s diaphragm valve element with 9461’s metal material for the diaphragm valve element.
9461 teaches the control circuit is configured so as, by applying a positive drive voltage one or more times (Pg. 4, 5th Para. through Pg. 5, 1st Para.) and then applying a negative drive voltage to the piezo actuator in order to operate the diaphragm valve element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application of the drive voltage to the piezo actuator of Sugita with positive/negative voltages as taught by 9461 in order to operate the diaphragm valve element.
The Sugita–9461 combination does not explicitly teach applying a negative drive voltage a plurality of times to the piezo actuator at a desired timing. However, the Sugita–9461 combination has the same parts and functionality and is therefore capable of applying a negative drive voltage a plurality of times to the piezo actuator at a desired timing.
The Sugita–9461 combination does not explicitly teach bring[ing] an amount of strain detected by the strain sensor close (Sugita 15) to zero when no drive voltage is applied to the piezo actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive voltage based upon the strain detection since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, Sugita teaches the amount of strain detected by the strain sensor close to zero when there is no drive voltage applied to the piezo actuator because of the orientation of the valve as well as lack of an elastic member.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the Sugita–9461 combination teaches the negative drive voltage is applied while gradually increasing the voltage (Sugita Para. 35).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herz et al. (US PGPub 20130055889 A1) and Ieki (US PGPub 20180163883 A1) disclose a piezoelectric driven valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights