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 .
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 11-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgschulte (US 20080308096) in view of Fang (US 20090159720).
Regarding claim 4, Borgschulte discloses a head for a fluid excitation device, the head comprising:
a transducer (32, 35) and a flexible substrate (31), wherein:
the transducer comprises a vibration generation portion (32) and a fluid excitation portion (33) in the form of a sheet (Figure 8) that is secured to the vibration generation portion in a manner that enables vibrations to be transmitted from the vibration generation portion to the fluid excitation portion (Paragraph 34), the flexible substrate (31) has a thickness in the range of 1 to 500 microns (Paragraph 22, 10 to 250 micrometers), but fails to disclose wherein the transducer is secured to the flexible substrate via a first adhesive layer that is positioned between the substrate and the vibration generation portion; and the vibration generation portion comprises an upper vibration generation portion and a lower vibration generation portion, and wherein the fluid excitation portion is sandwiched between the upper vibration generation portion and the lower vibration generation portion thereby securing the fluid excitation portion to the vibration generation portion.
Borgschulte discloses a transducer that features a metal diaphragm attached to the surface of a piezo electric plate (Figure 8), and further discloses that transducers of varying structure may be used within the scope of the device (Paragraph 35).
Fang discloses a transducer that improves over a transducer that features a metal diaphragm attached to the surface of a piezo electric plate (Paragraph 6). The Fang transducer includes a vibration generation portion (1) and a fluid excitation portion (2), the vibration generation portion (1) comprises an upper vibration generation portion and a lower vibration generation portion, and wherein the fluid excitation portion is sandwiched between the upper vibration generation portion and the lower vibration generation portion thereby securing the fluid excitation portion to the vibration generation portion (Figure 4 and Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to improve Borgschulte with the disclosures of Fang, replacing the transducer of Borgschulte with that of Fang, providing a vibration generation portion (Fang, 1) and a fluid excitation portion (Fang, 2), the vibration generation portion comprises an upper vibration generation portion and a lower vibration generation portion (Fang, Figure 4), and wherein the fluid excitation portion is sandwiched between the upper vibration generation portion and the lower vibration generation portion thereby securing the fluid excitation portion to the vibration generation portion (Fang, Figure 4 and Paragraph 32), in order to provide for higher energy conversion efficiency and a longer service life, as disclosed by Fang (Paragraph 8).
Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses wherein the transducer (Fang, 1, 2) is secured to the flexible substrate (Borgschulte, 31) via a first adhesive layer (Paragraph 35, bonded fastening) that is positioned between the substrate and the vibration generation portion (as modified).
Regarding claim 5, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the head of claim 4, wherein the flexible substrate is a printed circuit board (Paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 6, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the head of claim 4, wherein the vibration generation portion (Fang, 1) comprise a piezoelectric material (Paragraph 32) and the fluid excitation portion (Fang, 2) comprises a ceramic sheet or a metal sheet (Paragraph 32, metal sheet).
Regarding claim 7, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the head of any claim 4, wherein the vibration generation portion (Fang, 1) is ring-shaped (Fang, Figures 1 and 4) and wherein the fluid excitation portion is located within a central hole of the ring (Fang, Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses a fluid excitation device, comprising the head of claim 4, coupled to a fluid reservoir (4) (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 11, wherein at least one fluid test hole is formed in the flexible substrate (Figure 2a, the flexible substrate 31 has a central opening) to enable testing of fluid in the fluid reservoir (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight).
Regarding claim 13, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 11, wherein the device is an atomization device (Abstract, aerosol generation device).
Regarding claim 14, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 13, wherein the fluid excitation portion (Fang, 2) includes a plurality of holes (Fang, Figure 1) and the fluid reservoir is mounted below the head (Borgschulte, Figure 1) such that vibrations in the fluid excitation portion draw fluid from the fluid reservoir through the plurality of holes to generate droplets at an upper surface of the fluid excitation portion (The arrangement of the claimed structure, provides for the claimed function).
Regarding claim 15, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 14, wherein the plurality of holes is formed by a mesh (Fang, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 11, wherein a fluid tight seal is formed between the head and the reservoir (Borgschulte, Paragraph 23, the head is bonded to the reservoir).
Regarding claim 19, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 18, wherein the fluid tight seal is formed at least in part by an edge of the fluid reservoir being arranged in sealing contact with the flexible substrate (Paragraph 23 and Figure 1 depicts the substrate being received on the top of the reservoir in sealing contact).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgschulte (US 20080308096) in view of Fang (US 20090159720) and Yamamoto (JP 59052561).
Regarding claim 8, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the head of claim 4, but fails to disclose the device further including an electrically conductive layer that is positioned between the vibration generation portion and the first adhesive layer.
Yamamoto discloses a device wherein an electrically conductive layer (2b) is positioned between a vibration generation portion (1) and a first adhesive layer (4a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Borgschulte in view of Fang with the disclosures of Yamamoto, further providing an electrically conductive layer (Yamamoto, 2b) positioned between the vibration generation portion (Fang, 1) and first adhesive layer (Borgschulte, Paragraph 35), in order to effectively stabilize the atomizing characteristics, as disclosed by Yamamoto (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the head of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the head further comprises first and second electrically conductive layers, wherein the first and second electrically conductive layers are each electrically coupled to the printed circuit board.
Yamamoto discloses a subassembly that includes a vibration generation element with first and second electrically conductive layers (2a, 2b) on each side of an electrical generator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Borgschulte in view of Fang with the disclosures of Yamamoto, further providing the vibration generation portion to includes first and second electrically conductive layers (Yamamoto, 2a, 2b) on each side of the vibration generating portion, in order to effectively stabilize the atomizing characteristics, as disclosed by Yamamoto (Abstract).
Borgschulte in view of Fang and Yamamoto, further provides a device wherein the first and second electrically conductive layers (Yamamoto, 2a, 2b) are each electrically coupled to the printed circuit board (31).
Regarding claim 10, Borgschulte in view of Fang and Yamamoto discloses the head of claim 9, wherein the first electrically conductive layer (Yamamoto, 2b) is positioned between the vibration generation portion (Fang, 1) and the first adhesive layer (Borgschulte, Paragraph 35), and the second electrically conductive layer (Yamamoto, 2a) is positioned on another surface of the vibration generation portion such that the vibration generation portion is sandwiched between the first and second electrically conductive layers (Yamamoto, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgschulte (US 20080308096) in view of Fang (US 20090159720) and Gallem (US 2008/0006264).
Regarding claim 16, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the fluid reservoir is mounted above the head such that vibrations in the fluid excitation portion are capable of exciting corresponding vibrations in a fluid in the fluid reservoir to generate droplets of the fluid.
Gallem discloses a device wherein a reservoir may be mounted above or below a head (Figure 4A, Figure 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Borgschulte in view of Fang with the disclosures of Gallem, providing as an alternative, a device wherein the fluid reservoir is mounted above the head such that vibrations in the fluid excitation portion are capable of exciting corresponding vibrations in a fluid in the fluid reservoir to generate droplets of the fluid (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight), as the configurations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of fluid to the head for atomization, in a system where the location of the reservoir is not a critical element.
Regarding claim 20, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 1, but fails to disclose the device further comprising a flotation device coupled to the head.
Gallem discloses a device wherein a flotation device (Figures 4A, 4B, o-ring; Examiner interprets the o-ring as a flotation device, as it is capable of floating on water) is coupled to the head.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Borgschulte in view of Fang with the disclosures of Gallem, providing an o-ring coupled to the head, as the configurations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including effective sealing about the head.
Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgschulte (US 20080308096) in view of Fang (US 20090159720) and Muller (US 2018/0169713).
Regarding claim 17, Borgschulte in view of Fang discloses the fluid excitation device of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the device is an ultrasonic bath, and wherein the fluid reservoir is mounted above the head such that vibrations in the fluid excitation portion are capable of exciting corresponding vibrations in a fluid in the fluid reservoir.
Muller discloses a device wherein the device is an ultrasonic bath (Paragraphs 56-57), and wherein the fluid reservoir is mounted above or below the head such that vibrations in the fluid excitation portion are capable of exciting corresponding vibrations in a fluid in the fluid reservoir (Figures 4A and 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Borgschulte in view of Fang with the disclosures of Muller, providing a device wherein the device is an ultrasonic bath (Paragraphs 56-57), and wherein the fluid reservoir is mounted above or below the head such that vibrations in the fluid excitation portion are capable of exciting corresponding vibrations in a fluid in the fluid reservoir (Figures 4A and 4B), as the configurations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of fluid to the head for atomization, in a system where the location of the reservoir is not a critical element.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12208409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang.
Claim 1 of ‘409 discloses the limitations of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the transducer is secured to the flexible substrate via a first adhesive layer that is positioned between the substrate and the vibration generation portion; and the vibration generation portion comprises an upper vibration generation portion and a lower vibration generation portion, and wherein the fluid excitation portion is sandwiched between the upper vibration generation portion and the lower vibration generation portion thereby securing the fluid excitation portion to the vibration generation portion.
Fang discloses a transducer that improves over a transducer that features a metal diaphragm attached to the surface of a piezo electric plate (Paragraph 6). The Fang transducer includes a vibration generation portion (1) and a fluid excitation portion (2), the vibration generation portion (1) comprises an upper vibration generation portion and a lower vibration generation portion, and wherein the fluid excitation portion is sandwiched between the upper vibration generation portion and the lower vibration generation portion thereby securing the fluid excitation portion to the vibration generation portion (Figure 4 and Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to improve Claim 4 with the disclosures of Fang, replacing the transducer of Borgschulte with that of Fang, providing a vibration generation portion (Fang, 1) and a fluid excitation portion (Fang, 2), the vibration generation portion comprises an upper vibration generation portion and a lower vibration generation portion (Fang, Figure 4), and wherein the fluid excitation portion is sandwiched between the upper vibration generation portion and the lower vibration generation portion thereby securing the fluid excitation portion to the vibration generation portion (Fang, Figure 4 and Paragraph 32), in order to provide for higher energy conversion efficiency and a longer service life, as disclosed by Fang (Paragraph 8).
Claim 4 also fails to disclose wherein the flexible substrate has a thickness in the range of 1 to 500 microns.
Borgschulte discloses a device wherein the flexible substrate has a thickness in the range of 1 to 500 micron (Paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 2 with the disclosures of Borgschulte, providing the substrate to have a thickness in the range of 1 to 500 micron, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
The limitations of claim 5 are put forth by claim 1 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 6 are put forth by claim 4 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 7 are put forth by claim 5 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 8 are put forth by claim 6 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 9 are put forth by claim 8 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 10 are put forth by claim7 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 11 are put forth by claim 1 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 12 are put forth by claim 1 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 13 are put forth by claim 9 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 14 are put forth by claim 10 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 15 are put forth by claim 11 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 16 are put forth by claim 12 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 17 are put forth by claim 13 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 18 are put forth by claim 1 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 19 are put forth by claim 1 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
The limitations of claim 20 are put forth by claim 14 of ‘409 in view of Borgschulte and Fang
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights