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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 2/2/2026. The previous specification objection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s arguments found on page 5. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itzhaky (U.S. 6,450,204) in view of Munz (WO2012/025197)(reference and machine translation supplied herewith and referred to below).
Itzhaky discloses a system comprising an electrically-controllable valve comprising: a valve body (2) comprising an inlet (6), a first outlet (4), and a second outlet (5); a first piezo element (7) configured to control a fluid flow through the first outlet; and a second piezoelectrical element (8) configured to control the fluid flow through the second outlet; wherein the first piezo element and the second piezo element are mechanically independent of each other (see fig. 1 as they are two separate structures in the same manner as the applicant’s device); and a controller operatively connected to the first and second piezo elements a controller (not particularly depicted but necessarily present to provide the electrical control, the power supply as depicted as U1 and U2 in Itzhaky.
While Itzhaky appears to disclose two different sources of voltages (U1 and U2), Itzhaky is silent as to the first and second piezo elements being electrically independent of each other and a second controller operatively connected to the second piezo element (in essence, having two controllers, one for each of the piezo elements).
Munz teaches it was known in the art to have piezo valves that can alternatively be operated as switch valves (similar to Itzhaky) or alternatively be controlled electrically and independently from each other as proportional valves (see para. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Itzhaky by having each piezo valve be controlled electrically independently from each other as taught by Munz in order to provide proportional valve control to each valve, such that each valve can control the amount/quantity of fluid flow through each outlet if so desired by a user for a particular application.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Itzhaky such that there is a second controller to control the second piezo element, since it has been held that a duplication of essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have separate controllers for each piezo valve, potentially reducing overall size, cost, and complexity of the controllers.
Regarding claim 2, Itzhaky as modified further discloses wherein the fluid flow comprises at least one of a gas or an aqueous solution (deemed to be met by Itzhaky as modified as this is an intended use of the material/article worked upon and not given patentable weight, see MPEP2115).
Regarding claim 3, Itzhaky as modified further discloses wherein the first piezo element is configured to control the fluid flow through the first outlet by displacing a first valve member (14) associated with the first piezo element.
Itzhaky as modified is silent as to the displacement being between about 10 um to about 1,000 um when a voltage is applied to the first piezo element.
However, as the modification of Itzhaky by Munz above teaches proportional valve control, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the proportional control of the valve to any number of microns, including between about 10 um and 1,000 um as an engineering expedient / design choice to provide a desired amount of fluid flow/quantity through the valve and as there is no demonstrated criticality of the range listed above.
Regarding claim 4, Itzhaky as modified further discloses wherein the second piezo element is configured to control the fluid flow through the second outlet by displacing a second valve member (16) associated with the second piezo element.
Itzhaky as modified is silent as to the displacement being between about 10 um to about 1,000 um when a voltage is applied to the first piezo element.
However, as the modification of Itzhaky by Munz above teaches proportional valve control, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the proportional control of the valve to any number of microns, including between about 10 um and 1,000 um as an engineering expedient / design choice to provide a desired amount of fluid flow/quantity through the valve and as there is no demonstrated criticality of the range listed above.
Regarding claim 5, Itzhaky as modified further discloses wherein the electrically-controllable valve is a magnetic resonance ("MR") graded electrically-controllable valve (see 1 overall of Itzhaky as modified above, which is seen to be “MR” graded as no further limitations or guidance are provided as to the structure/material/etc. that is required).
Regarding claim 7, Itzhaky discloses a method of fluid control, comprising: providing a fluid flow from a fluid flow device to an electrically-controllable valve (from the source of fluid that leads to inlet 6 of valve 1); applying at least a first voltage to a first piezo element of the electrically-controllable valve to allow passage of the fluid flow from an inlet of the electrically-controllable valve through a first outlet (5) of the electrically-controllable valve (col. 4, ll. 58-67, the voltage applied to close the outlet 4); and applying at least a second voltage to a second piezo element of the electrically-controllable valve to allow passage of the fluid flow from the inlet of the electrically-controllable valve through a second outlet (4) of the electrically-controllable valve (col. 5, ll. 36-45, the voltage applied to close the outlet 5); wherein the first piezo element and the second piezo element are located within a valve body (1) of the electrically-controllable valve and mechanically independent of each other (see fig. 1 as they are two separate structures in the same manner as the applicant’s device), and a controller operatively connected to the first and second piezo elements (not particularly depicted but necessarily present to provide the electrical control, the power supply as depicted as U1 and U2 in Itzhaky.
While Itzhaky appears to disclose two different sources of voltages (U1 and U2), Itzhaky is silent as to the first and second piezo elements being electrically independent of each other and a second controller operatively connected to the second piezo element (in essence, having two controllers, one for each of the piezo elements).
Munz teaches it was known in the art to have piezo valves that can alternatively be operated as switch valves (similar to Itzhaky) or alternatively be controlled electrically and independently from each other as proportional valves (see para. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Itzhaky by having each piezo valve be controlled electrically independently from each other as taught by Munz in order to provide proportional valve control to each valve , such that each valve can control the amount/quantity of fluid flow through each outlet if so desired by a user for a particular application.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Itzhaky such that there is a second controller to control the second piezo element, since it has been held that a duplication of essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have separate controllers for each piezo valve, potentially reducing overall size, cost, and complexity of the controllers.
Regarding claim 8, Itzhaky as modified further discloses wherein the first voltage is independently applied to the first piezo element via the first controller operatively connected to the first piezo element and an associated power supply (the independent application as taught above by Munz, applied via a controller not particularly depicted but necessarily present to provide the electrical control, the power supply as depicted as U1 and U2 in Itzhaky and also necessarily present in the teaching of Munz).
Regarding claim 9, Itzhaky as modified discloses wherein the second voltage is independently applied to the second piezo element (the independent application as taught above by Munz) via the second controller (as taught above in the rejection of claim 7) and an associated power supply (the power supply as depicted as U1 and U2 in Itzhaky and also necessarily present in the teaching of Munz).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 6 of the response have been noted. Claim 1 has been amended to include some of the limitations from allowable claim 6 but not all of the limitations. As such, a 103 rejection for claim 1 remains and is presented above. Claim 7 has been amended but does not include the limitations of allowable claim 10.
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 MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753