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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 22 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 December 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herz (US 9,410,641 B2).
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, col. 12, lines 5-10 and col. 16, lines 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, col. 12, lines 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, col. 14, lines 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, col 14, line 41 bridging col 15, line 5).
Claim 10:
Herz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metal base plate (120) includes 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 (figs. 2A and 2B, col. 12, lines 25-39).
Claim 14:
Herz discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the fluid is a gas (col. 8, lines 29-32).
Claim 15:
Herz discloses the method of claim 10, wherein attaching the piezoelectric element (210) to the foil includes: providing a voltage to the piezoelectric element (210) to conform a shape of a surface of the piezoelectric element (210) to a shape of a surface of the non-flat configuration of the metal foil; and bonding the surface of the piezoelectric element (210) to the surface of the non-flat configuration of the metal foil while the voltage is applied to the piezoelectric element (210) (col. 4, lines 20-27 and col. 4, lines 33-42).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herz (US 9,410,641 B2).
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, col. 2, lines 58-63 and col. 16, lines 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, col. 2, lines 52-63 and col. 16, lines 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, col. 2, lines 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, col. 2, lines 52-63).
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, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinbach et al. (US 5,814,019).
Claim 2:
Herz discloses the method of claim 1; and, Herz fails to disclose the metal foil includes titanium. Instead, Herz discloses the metal foil may comprise metals or metal alloys (col. 16, lines36-39).
Steinbach discloses an implantable infusion pump (abstract) further comprising a metal foil including titanium (col. 3, lines 26-28). Steinbach further discloses the metal foil may be made of any metal including aluminum, gold, silver, titanium or platinum (col. 3, lines 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Labbe et al. (US 4,944,659).
Claim 3:
Herz discloses the method of claim 1; and, Herz fails to disclose the metal base plate (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, col. 3, lines 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, col. 2, lines 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz (US 9,410,641 B2).
Claim 10:
Herz discloses the method of claim 1; and, the embodiment reflected in fig. 8 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 (figs. 8, col. 2, lines 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 (figs. 2A and 2B, col. 12, lines 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, col. 12, lines 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 discloses 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, col. 2, lines 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 4-9 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 4:
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 roll-milling the foil.
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.
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