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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nip et al. (US 2012/0282111 A1, hereafter “Nip”).
As to claim 1, Nip discloses an electroosmotic pump (100; see Fig. 2) comprising:
a housing (see annotated Fig. 2 below, hereafter referred to as “Fig. A”) including a shaft hole (annotated below, between arrows);
a membrane (106) arranged between a first space (upper part of 102, annotated below) disposed in a direction away from the shaft hole and a second space (area between shaft and top of membrane, annotated below) adjacent to the shaft hole (Fig. A);
a first electrode body (108A) and a second electrode body (108B) arranged at opposite sides of the membrane (Fig. 2);
a shaft (see Fig. A) extending to an outside of the housing through the shaft hole (Fig. A); and
a deformation portion (110) communicating with a side of the housing, in which the first space is formed, including a third space (annotated below) connecting to the first space, and being deformable (para 0068, 0071).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Nip discloses the electroosmotic pump of claim 1, further comprising a first fluid included in an internal space of the housing (see para 0067, 0068, 0071).
As to claim 3, Nip discloses the electroosmotic pump of claim 2, wherein a volume of the first fluid is less than a volume of the internal space (since the claim does not explicitly define where the internal space is located or give a numerical value for either volume, one can arbitrarily interpret the internal space as a volume that satisfies this limitation – see para 0067, 0068, 0071).
As to claim 5, Nip discloses the electroosmotic pump of claim 2, wherein the first fluid is provided in each of the first space and the second space (see para 0067, 0068, 0071), and a volume of the first fluid in the first space is less than a volume of the first space (the examiner notes that interpretation of the first space and second space is somewhat arbitrary, the second space can be further interpreted to include, for example, chamber 104 as well as chamber 122 in order to satisfy the claim, additionally “a volume” is not the same thing as a total volume and can additionally be interpreted arbitrarily).
For the purposes of rejecting claims 9-10, an alternative interpretation of Nip is given below:
As to claim 1, Nip discloses an electroosmotic pump (100; see Fig. 2) comprising:
a housing (see annotated Fig. 2 below, hereafter referred to as “Fig. B”) including a shaft hole (annotated below, between arrows);
a membrane (106) arranged between a first space (upper part of 102, annotated below) disposed in a direction away from the shaft hole and a second space (area between shaft and top of membrane, annotated below) adjacent to the shaft hole;
a first electrode body (108A) and a second electrode (108B) body arranged at opposite sides of the membrane (Fig. B);
a shaft (annotated below) extending to an outside of the housing through the shaft hole (Fig. B); and
a deformation portion (annotated below, includes 110 as well as walls that 110 is attached to) communicating with a side of the housing (see Fig. B), in which the first space is formed, including a third space (annotated below) connecting to the first space, and being deformable (para 0068, 0071).
PNG
media_image2.png
569
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nip in view of Bryant et al. (US 6,604,908 A1, hereafter “Bryant”).
As to claim 7, Nip discloses the electroosmotic pump of claim 1 as described in the first rejection of claim 1 above, but does not expressly recite wherein the deformation portion is formed of a material capable of elastic deformation.
Bryant discloses “methods and systems may utilize pump chambers having at least one moveable surface, where, in some embodiments the moveable surface is a flexible membrane, which, in some such embodiments is elastic” (see para beginning line 11 col. 12, also see para beginning line 45 col. 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nip such that the deformation portion is formed of a material capable of elastic deformation. One would have been motivated to do so so that the deformation portion of Nip provides a resistance to beinding or stretching (see see para beginning line 11 col. 12, also see para beginning line 45 col. 17 of Bryant).
As to claims 9-10, Nip discloses the electroosmotic pump of claim 1 as described in the second rejection of claim 1 above, but does not expressly recite wherein an elastic portion that is capable of elastic deformation is formed in a side of the deformation portion or wherein the elastic portion is at a center portion of the deformation portion.
Bryant discloses “methods and systems may utilize pump chambers having at least one moveable surface, where, in some embodiments the moveable surface is a flexible membrane, which, in some such embodiments is elastic” (see para beginning line 11 col. 12, also see para beginning line 45 col. 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nip such that the movable member 110 is formed of a material capable of elastic deformation. One would have been motivated to do so so that the movable member of Nip provides a resistance to beinding or stretching (see see para beginning line 11 col. 12, also see para beginning line 45 col. 17 of Bryant). With such a modification, it can be further said that an elastic portion that is capable of elastic deformation is formed in a side of the deformation portion or wherein the elastic portion is at a center portion of the deformation portion (moveable member 110 of Nip being in a side/center portion of the annotated deformation portion – see Fig. B above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to each of claims 4, 6 and 8, while Nip discloses the limitations of claim 1 (and claim 2 is it pertains to claim 4), Nip is silent to the limitations recited in each of claims 4, 6, and 8 in combination with the limitations of claims 2 and/or 1, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James D Ponton whose telephone number is (571)272-1001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/James D Ponton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights