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 § 102 and 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by WO 2019/059043, which discloses:
1. A process fluid-flow control device comprising:
an inlet (12 of FIG 1),
an outlet (13),
an actuation mechanism (100, 200) and
a diaphragm (20);
wherein:
the diaphragm is in direct operational communication with the outlet and/or the inlet (see FIG 1);
the mechanism comprises a driving piezoelectric component (100, 102), and
the device is configured to allow: employing the driving piezoelectric component to adjust force exerted on the diaphragm and thereby regulating flow of the process fluid through the device within a first rate range (it is so capable; see para. 27-30); and
the mechanism further comprising at least one piston (38, 40, 110) having a first end directly in contact with the diaphragm (the bottom of piston part 38) and a second end directly in contact with the piezoelectric driving component (the top of piston part 110),
wherein the device is further configured to allow:
employing the driving piezoelectric component to adjust force exerted on the at least one piston (e.g., via 102), and
the at least one piston to apply force on the diaphragm and thereby reducing or shutting off flow of the process fluid through the device (via 38).
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the device is normally open (“In the above embodiment, a so-called normally closed type valve has been described as an example, but the present invention is not limited to this, and is also applicable to a normally open type valve”), the device further comprising pneumatic means for applying force on the at least one piston, thereby shutting flow through the device (para. 28-30, operating main actuator 60, pipe 160).
3. The device of claim 2, the second end directly in contact with a free end of the piezoelectric driving component (see FIG 5), and wherein the piezoelectric driving component (101) is a flexuretype (it flexes as it expands and contracts).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claimed steps would necessarily be performed during the normal and usual operation of the prior art device, and specifically regarding claim 7, in the normally-open type valve embodiment.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2019/059043.
Regarding claim 5, WO 2019/059043 discloses the device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a replacement driving piezoelectric component. However it is implicit that the device is produced/supplied in quantities greater than one, and therefore a piezoelectric component from a second device is read as the claimed replacement actuation mechanism. Alternatively it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide a second device in the event that the first device fails, thus satisfying the claimed presence of a replacement driving component. Further, the limitation “wherein the device is configured to allow employing the at least one replacement driving piezoelectric component to regulate flow of the fluid through the device within a rate range that is not the first rate range” is met in that the claimed “first rate range” is read as a smaller range than the range which the prior art device is capable of handling, and thus use of the duplicate driving component would operate as intended including over a rate range outside of the first rate range.
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2019/059043.
WO 2019/059043 discloses the invention as claimed with exception to the displacement (location) feedback control loop and the flow rate measurement feedback control loop. However it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date (taken as admitted prior art because Applicant did not traverse the prior assertion of well-known status) to, regarding claims 4 and 8, measure the location of a driving component to adjust the location of a flow control piston, and regarding claim 9 to measure a mass flow rate to compare with a setpoint mass flow rate, in order to control the operation of the valve to provide a predetermined desired flow. To provide a desired flow rate using the valve of WO 2019/059043, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a position-feedback loop or a measured flow-rate feedback loop as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,440,925 discloses the use of gradations on a similar piston along with the use of an encoder to determine position and flow rate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Applicant argues that members 38 and 110 are located between the piston and the diaphragm, and the piston and the piezoelectric element, respectively, and therefore that the piston is not in direct contact with the diaphragm and piezoelectric element. In response, the rejection reads the claimed piston as including members 102, 40 and 38. Similarly, see Applicant’s two-part piston which has an upper part 426b in separable contact with the piezoelectric element and a lower part 426a which contacts the diaphragm.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, see the main piston 60 and supply pipe 160, either or both of which constitute a pneumatic means as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art element is considered a flexuretype because it flexes as it expands and contracts. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., high positioning accuracy with a resolution in the sub-nanometer range, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 4, 5, 8 and 9, see the claim interpretation and obviousness analyses set forth in the body of the rejection above, which are not addressed by Applicant’s argument.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
12/22/25