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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz (US 9,410,641 B2) in view of Jha et al. (US 5,489,411).
Claim 1:
Herz discloses a method of making a bending transducer, the method comprising:
applying a stress to a flat metal foil (110) to form the foil into a non-flat configuration (fig. 1B, c12, ll. 5-10 and c16, ll. 36-39); while the metal foil (110) is in in the non-flat configuration, attaching the metal foil (110) to a flat surface of a metal base plate (120) to form a chamber between the foil and the flat surface (fig. 1B, c12, ll. 5-10); and while the metal foil (110) is in in the non-flat configuration and attached to the flat surface of the metal base plate (120), attaching a piezoelectric element (210) to the foil (fig. 2A, c14, ll. 41-44), the piezoelectric element (210) being configured to change a distance between the foil and the flat surface of the metal base plate (120) (figs. 2A and 2B, c14, l41 bridging c15, l5).
Herz fails to disclose the applying the stress to the metal foil includes roll-milling the foil. Jha teaches manufacturing titanium metal foil by repeatedly reducing the thickness of the foil through successive cold rolling passes between the rolls of a conventional rolling mill and further teaches that the resulting foil is readily coiled on a take-up reel for continuous processing (figs. 1-2, c5 ll.54-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the conventional rolling-mill process taught by Jha to apply stress to the metal foil used in the Herz method of making a bending transducer because Jha teaches that rolling passes through a conventional rolling mill are a known and suitable technique for manufacturing and processing titanium metal foil. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because employing the known rolling-mill process of Jha in the method of Herz would have represented nothing more than the predictable use of a known metal-foil manufacturing technique to produce the foil utilized by Herz while yielding the expected result of providing stressed metal foil suitable for subsequent assembly into the implantable fluidic device.
Claim 10:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the metal base plate (Herz, 120) includes at least one passageway (Herz, 126, 128, 132, 142) through the metal base plate (Herz, 120) from a side of the metal base plate (Herz, 120) to the flat surface of the metal base plate (Herz, 120) and wherein applying the stress to the metal foil includes providing a fluid flow through the passageway (Herz, 126, 128, 132, 142) through the metal base plate (Herz, 120) from the side of the metal base plate (Herz, 120) to the flat surface of the metal base plate (Herz, 120) while the metal foil is positioned on the flat surface (Herz, figs. 2A and 2B, c12, ll. 25-39).
Claim 14:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 10, wherein the fluid is a gas (Herz, c8, ll. 29-32).
Claim 15:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 10, wherein attaching the piezoelectric element (Herz, 210) to the foil includes: providing a voltage to the piezoelectric element (Herz, 210) to conform a shape of a surface of the piezoelectric element (Herz, 210) to a shape of a surface of the non-flat configuration of the metal foil; and bonding the surface of the piezoelectric element (Herz, 210) to the surface of the non-flat configuration of the metal foil while the voltage is applied to the piezoelectric element (Herz, 210) (Herz, c4, ll. 20-27 and c4, ll. 33-42).
In an alternative, claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz (US 9,410,641 B2) in view of Jha et al. (US 5,489,411).
Claim 1:
Herz discloses a method of making a bending transducer, the method comprising:
applying a stress to a flat metal foil (820) to form the foil into a non-flat configuration (fig. 8, c2, ll. 58-63 and c16, ll. 36-39); while the metal foil (820) is in in the non-flat configuration, attaching the metal foil (820) to a flat surface of a metal base plate (810) to form a chamber between the foil and the flat surface (fig. 8, c2, ll. 52-63 and c16, ll. 36-39); and while the metal foil (820) is in in the non-flat configuration and attached to the flat surface of the metal base plate (810), attaching a piezoelectric element (830) to the foil (fig. 8, c2, ll. 52-63), the piezoelectric element (830) being configured to change a distance between the foil and the flat surface of the metal base plate (810) (fig. 8, c2, ll. 52-63).
Herz fails to disclose the applying the stress to the metal foil includes roll-milling the foil. Jha teaches manufacturing titanium metal foil by repeatedly reducing the thickness of the foil through successive cold rolling passes between the rolls of a conventional rolling mill and further teaches that the resulting foil is readily coiled on a take-up reel for continuous processing (figs. 1-2, c5 ll.54-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the conventional rolling-mill process taught by Jha to apply stress to the metal foil used in the Herz method of making a bending transducer because Jha teaches that rolling passes through a conventional rolling mill are a known and suitable technique for manufacturing and processing titanium metal foil. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because employing the known rolling-mill process of Jha in the method of Herz would have represented nothing more than the predictable use of a known metal-foil manufacturing technique to produce the foil utilized by Herz while yielding the expected result of providing stressed metal foil suitable for subsequent assembly into the implantable fluidic device.
Claim 5:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein attaching the metal foil (Herz, 820) to the flat surface of the metal base plate (Herz, 810) includes welding a perimeter of the metal foil to the metal base plate (Herz, fig. 8, c2, ll.52-67).
Claim 6:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 5, wherein attaching the piezoelectric element to the foil includes: providing a voltage to the piezoelectric element to conform a shape of a surface of the piezoelectric element to a shape of a surface of the non-flat configuration of the metal foil; and bonding the surface of the piezoelectric element to the surface of the non-flat configuration of the metal foil while the voltage is applied to the piezoelectric element (Herz, c22, ll. 9-23).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Jha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinbach et al. (US 5,814,019).
Claim 2:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 1; and, the base reference, Herz, fails to disclose the metal foil includes titanium. Instead, the base reference, Herz, discloses the metal foil may comprise metals or metal alloys (Herz, c16, ll.36-39).
Steinbach discloses an implantable infusion pump (abstract) further comprising a metal foil including titanium (c3, ll. 26-28). Steinbach further discloses the metal foil may be made of any metal including aluminum, gold, silver, titanium or platinum (c3, ll. 26-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic metal of Herz for the titanium metal of Steinbach since it was known that generic metals and titanium are analogues for metal foils for pumps. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Jha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Labbe et al. (US 4,944,659).
Claim 3:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 1; and, the base reference, Herz, fails to disclose the metal base plate (Herz, 120) includes titanium. Instead, Herz discloses pump bodies and pump membranes may be made of metals, synthetic materials, or polymers or stack structures thereof.
Labbe discloses a piezoelectric disc element bonded to a diaphragm member forming one wall of a pump chamber (abstract) further comprising a base plate (31) including titanium (figs. 3a and 3b, c3, ll. 33-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of making an implantable fluidic pump of Herz by providing a base plate including titanium as taught by Labbe in order to provide a bio-compatible metallic material (Labbe, c2, ll. 60-63). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In an alternative, claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz (US 9,410,641 B2) in view of Jha et al. (US 5,489,411).
Claim 10:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 1; and, the embodiment reflected in fig. 8 of the base reference, Herz, fails to disclose the metal base plate includes at least one passageway through the metal base plate and applying the stress to the metal foil includes providing a fluid flow through the passageway. Instead, embodiment 8 discloses schematic drawings of a micro pump with a pump body (Herz, figs. 8, c2, ll. 55-58).
Herz further discloses a micro pump includes a metal base plate having at least one passageway (126, 128, 132, 142) through the metal base plate (120) from a side of the metal base plate (120) to the flat surface of the metal base plate (120) and wherein applying the stress to the metal foil includes providing a fluid flow through the passageway (126, 128, 132, 142) through the metal base plate (120) from the side of the metal base plate (120) to the flat surface of the metal base plate (120) while the metal foil is positioned on the flat surface (Herz, figs. 2A and 2B, c12, ll. 25-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the micro pump reflected in fig. 8 of Herz includes at least one passageway and applying the stress to the metal foil included providing fluid flow through the passageway (Herz, figs. 2A and 2B, c12, ll. 25-39). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 11:
Herz in view of Jha renders obvious the method of claim 10, further comprising attaching first portions of a perimeter of the metal foil to the flat surface of the metal base plate before the fluid flow is provided through the passageway (Herz, c2, ll. 52-66). It would have been obvious that the joining of the pump chamber by laser welding is completed before the fluid flow is provided through the passageway given Herz discloses joining of the pump chamber by laser welding with no discussion of using the fluid flow to deform the membrane.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24 are allowed.
Claims 7-9 and 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 1, wherein applying the stress to the metal foil includes clamping the metal foil to the metal base plate with a clamping force that is greater at a perimeter of the metal foil than at a center of the foil and that includes a force component directed radially inward from the perimeter to the center.
Claim 12:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 11, further comprising attaching remaining portions of the perimeter of the metal foil to the flat surface of the metal base plate while or after the fluid flow is provided through the passageway.
Claim 21:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, inter alia, a method of making an implantable fluidic pump, comprising: applying a stress to a flat metal foil and attaching first portions of a perimeter of the metal foil to a flat surface of a metal base plate before a fluid flow is provided through a passageway; and attaching remaining portions of the perimeter of the metal foil to the flat surface of the metal base plate while or after the fluid flow is provided through the passageway.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bussmann et al. (US 12,404,849 B2) discloses a micromembrane pumping device. Richter et al. (US 2017/0226994 A1) discloses a pump having a piezo diaphragm transducer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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 supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights