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 1/26/2026. The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. Claims 1-3 remain pending. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasue et al. (U.S. 2005/0253100).
Yasue discloses a flow rate control valve for controlling a flow rate of a fluid, the flow rate control valve comprising: a valve block (14, 23, 27); a diaphragm (24) ; and an actuator (including components such as 22, 21, 19, 13, 56, 11, etc.), wherein: the diaphragm is configured to receive a pressure from the actuator such that the fluid that has flowed in an upstream flow path defined in the valve block is discharged (applied by the actuator to open the valve, see abstract and para. 50), via a space between an inside surface of the valve block and an inside surface of the diaphragm, from a downstream flow path defined in the valve block (the space formed when the diaphragm is opened); the diaphragm and the valve block are joined together (fig. 1, as all the components are joined together and the diaphragm and block are abutting and contacting each other) such that a vertical inner peripheral surface of the diaphragm and a vertical inner peripheral surface of the valve block are flush with each other (see Detail A in the annotated figure below and the block and diaphragm being flush with each other) and vertically continuous without an intervening element therebetween in a joint portion in which the diaphragm and the valve block are joined together (at the area of Detail A below); and each of the vertical inner peripheral surface of the diaphragm and the vertical inner peripheral surface of the valve block is parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the diaphragm (the surfaces of the diaphragm and the bock extending vertically in the area of Detail A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
854
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasue in view of Leys (U.S. 8,689,817).
Yasue discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the valve block made of PTFE, modified PTFE, or PFA, and the diaphragm made from modified PTFE or PFA.
Leys teaches it was known in the art to have a valve block and diaphragm made of PFA or modified PFA (col. 3, ll. 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasue such that the block and diaphragm are made of PFA/modified PFA as taught by Leys in order to have the material for the block and diaphragm be of a material that can be welded and has good chemical and temperature resistance and especially since it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasue in view of Hayashi (U.S. 2014/0190578).
Yasue discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the actuator being a piezoelectric actuator.
Hayashi teaches it was known in the art to have a piezoelectric actuator for a valve (actuator 3 is a piezoelectric stack 31, see para. 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasue by having the actuator be a piezoelectric actuator as taught by Hayashi in order to be able to electronically control the valve and control the displacement according to a voltage applied to the piezo stack (see para. 46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the 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 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