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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 22nd, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on January 22nd, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on October 23rd, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, & 18-21 have been amended. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1, 3-8, & 10-22 still remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings were previously objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Applicant’s amendments have obviated these objections, rendering them moot.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “at least one of the intake port and the exhaust port is in the elastic body” (of Claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8, & 10-22 were previously objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, thereby obviating these objections.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 13 should read “an opening in
Claim 20, lines 23-24 should read “the movable member faces
Claim 20, line 31 should rad “recess portion of
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-8, & 10-22 were previously 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. Applicant’s amendments have obviated these issues, rendering the rejections moot.
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 17 is 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.
Claim 17, lines 6-7 recite “at least one of the intake port and the exhaust port is in the elastic body”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it appears to directly conflict with the originally filed drawings, rendering its meaning unclear. At the outset, none of the supplied drawings depict an intake or exhaust opening being arranged “in the elastic body”, as claimed. However, Claim 17 requires the “opening” to be “in the elastic body”. This introduces ambiguity as to the particular structural requirement of the recited “opening”. As far as the examiner understands the invention, the recited “opening” is not located “in” the “elastic body”, but is actually disposed simply in one of the first and second members, as claimed in Claim 11. However, this is not what Claim 17 recites. The Examiner can only guess at Applicant’s true intent here. For these reasons, Claim 17 is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes herein, this limitation is interpreted as requiring the opening to be formed adjacent the elastic body.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “Tajima merely describes that the valve unit 80 includes the rigid annular frame 81 (the alleged "support member" of amended independent claim 1) and the film-like valve body 82 (the alleged "movable member" of amended independent claim 1). Tajima further describes that the diameter of the film-like valve body 82 is substantially same as the outer diameter of the rigid annular frame 81. Further, as shown in Fig. 2 of Tajima annotated by Examiner, the annotated non- overlapping region (the alleged "non-overlapping region of amended independent claim 1") merely corresponds to the portion of the film-like valve body 82 that encloses the opening 63. Therefore, Tajima does not describe that the annotated non-overlapping region of the film-like valve body 82 is a region except the annotated overlapping region of the film-like valve body 82. Furthermore, Tajima describes, as shown in Fig. 2 of Tajima annotated by Applicant, that the annotated non-overlapping region (that is a region except the overlapping region) is larger than the annotated overlapping region. Consequently, Tajima does not describe that the annotated overlapping region, as shown in above Fig. 2 of Tajima annotated by Applicant, is larger than the annotated non-overlapping region, as shown in above Fig. 2 of Tajima annotated by Applicant. Therefore, Tajima does not describe, in its entirety at least, for example, the features of "the movable member includes an overlapping region and a non-overlapping region, the support member overlaps the movable member in the overlapping region, the non-overlapping region is a region except for the overlapping region ... the overlapping region is larger than the non-overlapping region in plan view," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”, the examiner must respectfully disagree. The Examiner respectfully maintains that Tajima continues to disclose Applicant’s amended claims, and would respectfully direct Applicant to the updated prior art rejections below for further details. The same response by the examiner applies to independent Claims 11 & 20, where Applicant articulates the same arguments”, the examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant ultimately alleges that Tajima fails to disclose a non-overlapping region of the movable member that is a region except for the overlapping region of the movable member, wherein the overlapping region is larger than the non-overlapping region, as now claimed. However, this argument is not well taken. Applicant provides various annotated figures in the response attempting to articulate why the non-overlapping region must be interpreted as the entire remainder of the movable member outside of the overlapping region. However, the claims, as amended, simply do not require such an arrangement. As currently recited, the independent claims simply read “the non-overlapping region is a region except for the overlapping region”. Respectfully, this language does not require the specific region annotated by Applicant in the response. Stated another way, this language does not require the non-overlapping region to be the entire remainder of the movable member outside of the overlapping region. Instead, the amended claim language merely requires the non-overlapping region to be a region of the movable member that is different from the overlapping region. It does not require the non-overlapping region to border or follow the overlapping region (as Applicant’s drawing annotations assert); much less require that it be the entire remainder of the movable member outside of the overlapping region. Additionally, Applicant appears to be taking an interpretation of the claim language that interprets the term “larger” as specifically defining a surface area of the claimed overlapping and non-overlapping regions. Stated another way, Applicant appears to be interpreting the limitation “the overlapping region is larger than the first non-overlapping region in plan view” as requiring the overlapping region to form a larger surface area dimension that a surface area dimension of the non-overlapping region. Respectfully, such a particular arrangement is actually not required by the current claim language. In this case, the term “larger” can refer to any dimension, including a diameter dimension of the two regions. In the case of Tajima, his overlapping region clearly and definitively has a larger diameter than the non-overlapping region, and such an arrangement meets the current claim language, given the broad claim scope thereof. Furthermore, even when considering the surface area interpretation implied by Applicant, it is apparent from the examiner-annotated Figure 2 below that the overlapping region in Tajima also has a larger surface area than the non-overlapping region. Therefore, given these facts, the Examiner must respectfully maintain that Tajima continues to disclose a non-overlapping region of the movable member that is different from (and larger than) the overlapping region. Please refer to the rejections below for further details. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-7, 11-18, & 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2009156454 to Tajima.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1, 11, & 20, and with particular reference to Figures 1-2 shown immediately above, Tajima discloses:
1. A valve module (50A, 50B; Figs. 1-2), comprising: a specific member (60) that includes an opening (63), wherein a fluid passes through the opening (see flow arrows in Fig. 2b); a movable member (82) that is elastically deformable by the fluid (Fig. 2b above), wherein the movable member includes a first surface (i.e. top surface; Fig. 2), and a second surface (i.e. bottom surface; Fig. 2), the first surface of the movable member is different from the second surface of the movable member (Fig. 2), the first surface of the movable member faces the specific member (Fig. 2a) and the second surface of the movable member is opposite (i.e. axially opposite) to the first surface of the movable member (Fig. 2); and a support member (81) above the movable member (Fig. 2; the term “above” is merely defining an orientation of the valve module; Tajima is equally operable in a flipped orientation from the view depicted in Fig. 2 such that the support member 81 is “above” the movable member 80, as claimed); wherein each of the movable member and the support member is in a recess portion (61) of the specific member (Fig. 2); the movable member includes an overlapping region (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity; in particular, the annular region formed along support member 81) and a non-overlapping region (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity; in particular, the central most portion of member 82 directly covering/sealing opening 63), and the overlapping region is larger than the first non-overlapping region in plan view (this is apparent in Fig. 2; the overlapping region has a much larger diameter than the non-overlapping region; also, the overlapping region defines a larger total surface area than the non-overlapping region).
11. A fluid control apparatus (1; Fig. 1), comprising: a space (2), wherein a fluid (“air or liquid”) flows through the space (para. 1); a first member (10); a second member (20), wherein the first member is opposite to the second member (Fig. 1), the space is between the first member and the second member (Fig. 1), and at least one of the first member or the second member includes an elastic body (Fig. 1; para. 14); a drive mechanism (40) configured to: bend the elastic body (para. 14); and change a volume of the space (para. 14); an opening (25a, 25b, 29a) in at least one of the first member or the second member (Fig. 2) wherein the fluid that flows inside the space and outside the space passes through the opening (see flow arrows in Fig. 1); and a plurality of valve modules (50A, 50B; Fig. 1), wherein each of the plurality of valve modules comprises: a respective movable member (82; Fig. 2) that is elastically deformable by the fluid (Fig. 2b), wherein the respective movable member includes a first surface (i.e. top surface; Fig. 2) and a second surface (i.e. bottom surface; Fig. 2), the first surface of the respective movable member is different from the second surface of the respective movable member (Fig. 2), the first surface of the respective movable member faces the at least one of the first member of the second member (Fig. 2), and the second surface of the respective movable member is opposite to the first surface of the respective movable member (Fig. 2); and a respective support member (81) above the respective movable member (Fig. 2; the term “above” is merely defining an orientation of the valve module; Tajima is equally operable in a flipped orientation from the view depicted in Fig. 2 such that the support member 81 is “above” the movable member 80, as claimed); wherein each of the respective movable member and the respective support member is in a recess portion (27a, 27b) of the at least one of the first member or the second member (Fig. 2), the respective movable member includes an overlapping region and a non-overlapping region (Fig. 2 above), the respective support member overlaps the respective movable member in the overlapping region (Fig. 2); the non-overlapping region is a region except for the overlapping region (Fig. 2 above), and the overlapping region is larger than the non-overlapping region in plan view (this is apparent in Fig. 2; the overlapping region has a much larger diameter than the non-overlapping region; also, the overlapping region defines a larger total surface area than the non-overlapping region).
20. An electronic apparatus (“micropump”; para. 2), comprising a fluid control apparatus (1; Fig. 1), comprising: a space (2), wherein a fluid (“air or liquid”) flows through the space (para. 1); a first member (10); a second member (20), wherein the first member is opposite to the second member (Fig. 1), the space is between the first member and the second member (Fig. 1), and at least one of the first member or the second member includes an elastic body (Fig. 1; para. 14); a drive mechanism (40) configured to: bend the elastic body (para. 14); and change a volume of the space (para. 14); an opening (25a, 25b, 29a; Fig. 2) in the at least one of the first member or the second member (Fig. 1), wherein the fluid that flows inside the space and outside the space passes through the opening (see flow arrows in Fig. 1); and a valve module (50A, 50B; Fig. 1) comprising: a movable member (82; Fig. 2) that is elastically deformable by the fluid (Fig. 2b), wherein the movable member includes a first surface (i.e. top surface; Fig. 2) and a second surface (i.e. bottom surface; Fig. 2), the first surface of the movable member is different from the second surface of the movable member (Fig. 2), the first surface of the movable member faces the at least one of the first member or the second member (Fig. 2), the second surface of the movable member is opposite to the first surface of the movable member (Fig. 2); and a support member (81) above the movable member (Fig. 2; the term “above” is merely defining an orientation of the valve module; Tajima is equally operable in a flipped orientation from the view depicted in Fig. 2 such that the support member 81 is “above” the movable member 80, as claimed); wherein each of the movable member and the support member is in a recess portion (27a, 27b) of the at least one of first member or the second member (Fig. 1), the movable member includes an overlapping region and a non-overlapping region (labeled by the Examiner above, for clarity), wherein the support member overlaps the movable member in the overlapping region (Fig. 2); the non-overlapping region is a region except for the overlapping region (Fig. 2), and the overlapping region is larger than the non-overlapping region in plan view (this is apparent in Fig. 2; the overlapping region has a much larger diameter than the non-overlapping region; also, the overlapping region defines a larger total surface area than the non-overlapping region).
In regards to Claim 3, Tajima further discloses that the non-overlapping region includes a first non-overlapping region and a second non-overlapping region (two unequal areas can be arbitrarily defined in Tajima’s non-overlapping (i.e. central) region in order to define first and second regions having unequal area, as claimed; in this case, 2/3 (i.e. 66% area region) of the non-overlapping region qualifies as a first non-overlapping region, while 1/3 (i.e. 33% area region) of the non-overlapping region qualifies as a second non-overlapping region), the first non-overlapping region is different from the second non-overlapping region (different areas, as noted above), and an area of the first non-overlapping region is different from an area of the second non-overlapping region (different areas, as noted above).
In regards to Claim 4, Tajima further discloses that the support member is fixed to the specific member (apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 5, Tajima further discloses an end portion (i.e. inner diameter thereof) of the support member (Fig. 2), wherein the end portion of the support member is associated with a boundary between the overlapping region and the non-overlapping region, and a shape of the boundary is one of a straight line shape or a curved shape (para. 28; support member 81 is a stainless steel ring, and thus, has an inner circumferential wall forming an end portion that defines a boundary and has a “curved shape”, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 6, the specific member (60) further includes a plurality of openings (63, 64, 64) that includes the opening (Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 7, a shape of the opening is a curved shape (i.e. circular; Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 12, Tajima further discloses a first valve module (50A) of the plurality of valve modules is mounted on the recess portion (62) (Fig. 2), and an end portion (i.e. an axial end; Figs. 1-2) of the first valve module is brought into contact with an inner surface of the recess portion (apparent in Figs. 1-2).
In regards to Claim 13, Tajima discloses a plurality of intake ports (25a, 63) and a plurality of exhaust ports (29a, 63, 25b) (Fig. 1), wherein the opening includes an intake port (25a) of the plurality of intake ports and an exhaust port (25b) of the plurality of exhaust ports (Fig. 1), the intake port of the plurality of intake ports is configured to suck the fluid into the space (Fig. 3); the exhaust port of the plurality of exhaust ports is configured to discharge the fluid from the space (Fig. 3), and a number of the plurality of intake ports is different from a number of the plurality of exhaust ports (Fig. 1 clearly depicts that the fluid control device includes two intake ports 25a/63 and three discharge ports 29a, 63, & 25b).
In regards to Claims 14 & 16, the opening includes an intake port (25a) (Fig. 1) and an exhaust port (29a, 25b) (Fig. 1), the intake port is configured to suck fluid into the space (Figs. 1 & 3); the exhaust port is configured to discharge the fluid from the space (Figs. 1 & 3); a first valve module (50A) of the plurality of valve modules is in the intake port (valve module 50A is arranged in intake port 25a; Fig. 1), and a second valve module of the plurality of valve modules is in the exhaust port (valve module 50B is arranged in exhaust port 25b; Fig. 1); the first valve module is different from the second valve module (apparent in Fig. 1); at least one of a thickness of the respective movable member of the first valve module or a shape of the respective movable member of the first valve module is respectively different from at least one of a thickness of the respective movable member of the second valve module or a shape of the respective movable member of the second valve module (the shapes of the two movable members are always changing from flat to curved (see Fig. 2, for example) during operation of the fluid control apparatus; as such, there are clearly times at which the shapes of the two movable members are different from one another).
In regards to Claim 15, the opening includes an intake port (25a) (Fig. 1) and an exhaust port (29a, 25b) (Fig. 1), the intake port is configured to suck fluid into the space (Figs. 1 & 3); the exhaust port is configured to discharge the fluid from the space (Figs. 1 & 3); a first valve module (50A) of the plurality of valve modules is in the intake port (valve module 50A is arranged in intake port 25a; Fig. 1), and a second valve module of the plurality of valve modules is in the exhaust port (valve module 50B is arranged in exhaust port 25b; Fig. 1); the first valve module is different from the second valve module (apparent in Fig. 1); a shape the respective movable member of the first valve module is different from a shape of the respective support member of the second valve module (in this instance, during operation of the fluid control apparatus, when the movable member assumes the curved/flexed shape (see Fig. 2, for example), its shape is clearly different from the shape of the support member 81).
In regards to Claim 17, the opening includes an intake port (25a) that sucks the fluid into the space and an exhaust port (29a, 25a), the intake port is configured to suck fluid into the space, the exhaust port is configured to discharge the fluid from the space (see Claims 14-16 above), at least one of the intake port and the exhaust port is provided in the elastic body (see the drawing objection and 112(b) rejection above; Fig. 1 clearly shows that the intake and exhaust ports are disposed adjacent to each of the respective elastic bodies 82) and a valve module of the plurality of valve modules is mounted on the elastic body (Fig. 1 clearly shows that both valve modules 50A and 50B are at least indirectly mounted to the elastic body 10).
In regards to Claim 18, please see Claim 5 above.
In regards to Claim 21, the opening (63; Fig. 2) is at one of a position above the non-overlapping region in the recess portion or a position below the non-overlapping region in the recess portion (Fig. 2 clearly shows opening 63 being at a position above the non-overlapping region in the recess portion 62), and the movable member (82) is fixed to the specific member (60) at the overlapping region (indirectly, via plate 70; Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 22, the recess portion (62; Fig. 2) includes a plurality of openings (64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 8, 10, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (applied above) in view of US 2010/0074775 to Yamamoto.
In regards to Claims 8 & 10, Tajima discloses the valve module according to claim 1, but does not further disclose that the opening has Applicant’s claimed dimensions (Tajima appears to simply disclose a circular opening 63 (Fig. 3), and thus, does not disclose a y-axis dimension longer than an x-axis dimension (i.e. an oval shape or rectangular shape, for example), as claimed).
However, Yamamoto discloses another piezoelectric diaphragm pump (Fig. 1) having inlet/outlet ports (13, 14; Fig. 6) with associated flexible valve modules (11, 22; Fig. 6), and specifically discloses the use of oval/elliptical outlet openings/ports (14) (Fig. 2), wherein at least one opening 14 has a y-axis length 2-20 times larger than its x-axis length, with the x-axis direction being perpendicular to the y-axis direction and in a common plane with the y-axis direction (Fig. 2). Yamamoto discloses that the oval shape contributes to increasing the area of the outlet port, thereby facilitating discharging bubbles that have intruded into the pump chamber (para. 33). While Yamamoto does disclose oval shaped outlet ports have the length proportions claimed, he does not disclose Applicant’s particular length dimensions, as claimed. However, the examiner respectfully notes that it has been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. opening size) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (see In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233) or an optimum value of a result effective variable (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in paragraphs 244-246 of the instant application, these exemplary dimensions have been disclosed, but the applicant has failed to disclose any criticality for the claimed limitations. In fact, Applicant’s specification makes clear that “dimension examples of the valve module, etc. will be described, though not limited thereto” and “for example, a length a in the Y-axis direction be 1 mm to 2 mm and a length b in the X-axis direction be 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm”. In other words, Applicant’s own specification acknowledges that the claimed dimensions are merely exemplary, and thus, lack any criticality. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a diaphragm pump with improved bubble removal, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yamamoto in combination with those seen in Tajima in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tajima’s opening (63) with the oval shape (14) of Yamamoto (with a 2mm y-axis oval length and 0.5 x-axis oval length) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a diaphragm pump providing larger outlet openings that more effectively remove bubbles from the pumping chamber (as taught in Yamamoto).
In regards to Claim 19, a shape of the opening includes a curved shape (i.e. a circular opening, as is shown in Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC