DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 were filed with the Preliminary Amendment dated 07/29/2025
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: rigid force transfer element in claims 1, 3, and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes the rigid force transfer element is a sphere (para [0036]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 4,450,375 (“Siegal”).
With regard to claim 1, Siegal discloses a piezoelectric valve (10; abstract; Figs 1-5), comprising: a valve body (12) comprising an inlet duct (14) for a pressurized fluid, an outlet duct (16) for the pressurized fluid, and a valve seat (29) that puts the inlet duct (14) and the outlet duct (16) in fluid communication; and a piezoelectric plate (28; col. 2, lines 37-40), suitable for deforming (compare Figs 2 and 3) when actuated, housed in the valve body (12; see Figs 2-3); wherein: an inner chamber (22) communicating with the valve seat (29) and the outlet duct (16) is provided in the valve body (12) (see Fig 2); a sealing membrane (24) is housed in the inner chamber (22), the sealing membrane (24) having a shutter portion (portion of 24 adjacent 29, see annotated Figs) facing the valve seat (29) and being at least partially arranged about (“partially arranged about” is met because 24 is around at least one side of 28, see Fig 2) the piezoelectric plate (28) so as to avoid contact between the piezoelectric plate (28) and the pressurized fluid circulating in the piezoelectric valve (col. 2, lines 39-43); the piezoelectric plate (28) has a distal plate portion (portions of 48a/b near end) operatively connected to the sealing membrane (24) by at least one rigid force transfer element (sphere 30), the distal plate portion (48a/b near end) being movable between a first position (Fig 2 position in which closed; col. 3, lines 54-57), in which the distal plate portion (48a/b near end) causes, by the at least one rigid force transfer element (30), a deformation of at least the shutter portion (see annotated Figs) of the sealing membrane (24) to close the valve seat (29) (see Fig 2), and a second position (Fig 3 shows an open position), in which the distal plate portion (48a/b near end) allows at least the shutter portion (see annotated Figs) to remain in an undeformed state in which the shutter portion is detached from the valve seat (29) (see Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
868
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Siegal discloses that the at least one rigid force transfer element (30) is a sphere (see Fig 2) positioned with possibility of translation (translation shown in Figs 2 and 3) between the distal plate portion (portion at 48a/b near end) and the shutter portion of the sealing membrane (24) (see annotated Figs).
With regard to claim 5, Siegal discloses that the inlet (14) and outlet (16) ducts and the valve seat (29) are obtained or included in an outer portion (20) of the valve body (12) (see figs 1 and 2 showing 20 is an outer part of 12), wherein the distal plate portion (48a/b near end) is housed in an inner portion (inner portion of 12, see Figs 2 and 5) of the valve body (12) forming, with the outer portion (20), the inner chamber (22) (See Fig 2), wherein at least one element seat (46) is obtained or housed within the piezoelectric valve (10) (see Fig 5), wherein the at least one rigid force transfer element (30) is received with possibility of translation in the at least one element seat (46) (see Figs 2 and 3), and wherein the sealing membrane (24) is sealingly fit with shape coupling (“shape coupling” is broadly recited and met by the contouring of 24) onto the inner portion of the valve body (12) (see Fig 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 4,450,375 (“Siegal”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,173,744 (“Frisch”).
With regard to claim 2, Siegal discloses that when the piezoelectric plate (28) is not electrically actuated (biased closed, col 3, lines 54-66), the distal plate portion (48a/b near end) remains in the first position (closed), and wherein, when the piezoelectric plate (28) is electrically actuated, the distal plate portion (48a/b near end) switches from the first position (closed) to the second position (open) (col. 3, lines 54-66), overcoming a force of the pusher spring element.
Siegal discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the distal plate portion is biased by a pusher spring element to remain in the first position; and that when the piezoelectric plate is electrically actuated, the distal plate portion switches from the first position to the second position, overcoming a force of the pusher spring element.
Frisch discloses a piezoelectric valve with a piezoelectric plate (7), similar to that of Siegal, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a piezoelectric valve to include an end portion of the piezoelectric plate (left end of 7) biased by a pusher spring element (spring 15, col. 3, lines 45-49) to remain in the first position; and that when the piezoelectric plate is electrically actuated, the distal plate portion switches from the first position to the second position, overcoming a force of the pusher spring element (see Fig 1 of Frisch).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a pusher spring element, such as taught by Frisch, to the piezoelectric plate of Siegal, for the purpose of to ensure the biased position of the piezoelectric valve (see Frisch at Fig 1 and col. 3, lines 45-49).
With regard to claim 6, Siegal discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the valve seat is obtained at an end of a nozzle sealingly inserted into a nozzle seat provided in the valve body and fluidically communicating with the inlet duct and the inner chamber.
Siegal discloses that the valve seat is a nozzle form integral with the valve body (see Fig 2).
Frisch discloses a piezoelectric valve with a piezoelectric plate (7), similar to that of Siegal, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a piezoelectric valve to include a valve seat (4) is obtained at an end of a nozzle (6) sealingly inserted into a nozzle seat (opening in 1 in which 6 is inserted, see annotated Fig 1) provided in the valve body (1) and fluidically communicating with the inlet duct (duct at 4) and the inner chamber (2).
PNG
media_image2.png
486
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a nozzle in a nozzle seat for the valve seat as taught by Frisch in place of the valve seat of Frisch, since the valve seats are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 7, (claim 7 depends from claim 2) the combination of Siegal and Frisch discloses the pusher spring element is a flexural spring (15, see Figs 1 and 2) extending alongside the piezoelectric plate (7 of Frisch, 28 of Siegal) and a distal end of the flexural spring engages the distal plate portion (distal end of spring 15 of Frisch contacts a distal portion of the piezoelectric plate 7).
With regard to claim 8, (claim 8 depends from claim 7) the combination of Siegal and Frisch discloses the pusher spring element (15) is made of an electrically conductive material and is electrically connected to a pole of the piezoelectric plate (col. 4, lines 25-27; “The contact spring 15 presses against the points of application and establishes electrical contact with the outer electrodes”; see Fig 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “the distal plate portion is positioned between two rigid force transfer elements equal to each other and engaging two respective opposite portions of the sealing membrane, so that, when the distal plate portion is in the second position, a resultant of forces exerted by the pressurized fluid present in the inner chamber onto the distal plate portion is substantially zero” (claim 3) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
The closest prior art references of record are U.S. Pat. No. 4,450,375 (“Siegal”) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,629,926 (“Siegal 926”). However, neither Siegal nor Siegal 926 discloses the distal plate portion is positioned between two rigid force transfer elements equal to each other and engaging two respective opposite portions of the sealing membrane. Siegal and Siegal 926 only disclose a single rigid force transfer element on one side of the sealing membrane. It would not have been obvious to modify Siegal or Siegal 926 to add a second rigid force transfer element that is equal to the first and engaging opposite portions of the sealing membrane without improper hindsight reasoning or without improperly changing the principle of operation of either reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 4,629,926 and U.S. Pat. No. 4,771,204 each disclose a piezoelectric valve with a single rigid force transfer element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth 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 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights