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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (Figs 1A-1B) & Sub-Species A (Fig 8A) in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (Page 9 ¶2) the examiner overlooked the single inventive concept underlying each species, and that the variations in the different species are complementary design implementations of a single inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because – Applicants argument that the species are linked by the single inventive concept underlying each species – is an argument directed to unity of invention. However since the case was filed un 111(a), unity of invention is not used when determining restriction. Rather the unity of invention standard is only used in cases filed under 371. Accordingly, applicants argument that the species are linked by a single inventive concept is not persuasive, as this test is not used to determine if restriction is proper in cases filed under 111(a), like the instant application.
Additionally, applicants argument that the variations in the different species are complementary design implementations of a single inventive concept – fails to indicate that the different species are obvious variants. Accordingly, since the articulated species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record Applicants argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additionally, in the response filed on 06/08/2026 Applicant stated that claims 1-20 read on the elected invention. However the examiner disagrees. Reasons why particular claims are not directed to the elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A) is explained below.
Regarding Claim 2: claim 2 states in part:
“wherein the piezoelectric transducers are organized into two or more sets, the two or more sets consecutively arranged along the flow direction;”
The elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A) only has a single set, and the set contains 3 groups 14 of piezoelectric transducers as shown in Fig 1A & 1B. If there was more than one set in Species 1 the additional set(s) would be illustrated in the Figures of Species 1.
Regarding Claim 6: claim 6 states in part:
“wherein the at least one piezoelectric transducer of each group of the at least three groups of the set is arranged in a different row and in a different column than the at least one piezoelectric transducer of the other groups of the at least three groups of the set.”
The arrangement claimed here is a diagonal arrangement of the groups. However the elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A) does not have a diagonal arrangement of groups 14.
Regarding Claim 8: claim 8 states:
“wherein the respective membrane of each piezoelectric transducer comprises a piezoelectric layer, which is positioned between a bottom electrode and a top electrode of the piezoelectric transducer.”
While the piezoelectric transducers 13 of the elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A) are disclosed as having electrodes (¶0062), the structural arrangement of the electrodes with respect to piezoelectric layer is not described or shown in Species 1. Thus there is no way to show that the claimed arrangement of the piezoelectric layer being positioned between a top and bottom electrode as claimed is present in the elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A).
Regarding Claim 15: claim 15 states in part:
“wherein the respective membrane of each piezoelectric transducer is suspended in a cavity formed in a substrate of the piezoelectric transducer.”
The elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A) does not illustrate or describe the structure of the substrate of the piezoelectric transducer. Thus there is no way to show that the claimed arrangement of the respective membrane of each piezoelectric transducer is suspended in a cavity formed in a substrate of the piezoelectric transducer is present in the elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A).
Regarding Claim 20: claim 20 states in part:
“the first electrical control signal is further used to actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a fourth group of piezoelectric transducers of a further set;
the second electrical control signal is further used to actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a fifth group of piezoelectric transducers of the further set; and
the third electrical control signal is further used actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a sixth group of piezoelectric transducers of the further set,”
The elected invention (Species 1, Sub-Species A) only has a single set, and the set contains 3 groups 14 of piezoelectric transducers as shown in Fig 1A & 1B. If there was more than one set and 6 groups in Species 1 the additional set and groups 4-6 would be illustrated in the Figures of Species 1.
Accordingly, for at least the reasons explained above claims 2, 6, 8-17, and 20 are directed to a non-elected invention.
Claims 2, 6, 8-17, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 16 currently states:
“the electrical control signals, to create the net flow of fluid along the flow direction.”.
Should be changed to state:
--the electrical control signals, to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction.--.
Claim 18 Line 11 currently states:
“a controller configured to create the net flow of fluid along the flow direction, the method”.
Should be changed to state:
--a controller configured to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction, the method--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 3-5, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May US 2022/0154734.
Regarding Claim 1: May US 2022/0154734 discloses in Fig 9 the limitations:
An acoustic micropump device (the pump is defined by the sum of its parts) for creating a net flow of fluid along a flow direction (i.e. left to right direction in Fig 9), the acoustic micropump device comprising:
a fluid channel for the fluid (= channel through which the fluid indicated by the arrows flows through fluid pump 10 in Fig 9, ¶0077-¶0078);
a plurality of piezoelectric transducers (= 20A,20B,20C; each element 20 is a piezoelectric element, ¶0103) arranged adjacent to the fluid channel (Fig 9),
wherein the piezoelectric transducers are organized into a set (i.e. a set of three = A1,A2,A3) comprising at least three groups (first group = A1, second group = A2, third group = A3), the groups consecutively arranged along the flow direction (Fig 9), and each group comprising at least one piezoelectric transducer (Fig 9),
wherein each piezoelectric transducer of the plurality of piezoelectric transducers comprises a respective membrane (each element 20 has a moveable element 25 (¶0063), and each element 25 is a membrane ¶0106), which is configured to vibrate when the piezoelectric transducer is electrically actuated (¶0067) and configured to acoustically couple to the fluid channel (¶0068-¶0075, since the membrane 25 of each element 20 vibrates to move the substance through the channel (¶0060-¶0062) the membranes acoustically couple to the fluid channel as claimed). Fig 9 of May US 2022/0154734 is silent regarding the limitations: a controller configured to actuate the plurality of piezoelectric transducers using at least three periodic electrical control signals, each electrical control signal associated with a group of the at least three groups of the set; wherein the controller is configured to consecutively delay the at least three electrical control signals, in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set associated with the electrical control signals, to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction.
However, May US 2022/0154734 does disclose in Figs 1-8 the limitations:
a controller (50,60A, 60B, 60C, 60D, ¶0056-¶0057, ¶0072-¶0076) configured to actuate (i.e. drive, ¶0056-¶0057, ¶0072-¶0076) the plurality of piezoelectric transducers (the plurality of piezoelectric transducers = A1, A3, A5, A7 in Fig 8; elements A1, A3, A5, A7 in Fig 8 correspond to actuators 20 for actuators 1,3,5,7 in Fig 2-7; when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9 it would actuate 20A,20B,20C; each element 20 is a piezoelectric element, ¶0103) using at least three periodic electrical control signals (at least three periodic electrical control signals = first signal from amplifier 60A to drive actuator A1 at 0° phase, second signal from amplifier 60C to drive actuator A3 at 90° phase, third signal from amplifier 60A to drive actuator A5 at 180° phase, and fourth signal from amplifier 60C at 270° phase (since A7 is offset 180° from A3 due to the different polarity like what is seen with A1 & A5); when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9, because the device of Fig 9 has only three actuators 20, its operation would require only three control signals, one for each actuator), each electrical control signal associated with a group of the at least three groups of the set (when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9 –each group of 1 in Fig 9 would have a corresponding control signal);
wherein the controller is configured to consecutively delay the at least three electrical control signals (¶0072-¶0076 teaches operating the actuators A1, A3, A5, A7 in a phase shifted manner to move the fluid through the fluid channel A in the device of Fig 8 – where actuator A1 is set at 0° phase, actuator A3 is set at 90° phase, actuator A5 is set at 180° phase, and A7 is set at 270° phase (since A7 is offset 180° from A3 due to the different polarity like what is seen with A1 & A5) – thus the four actuators A1, A3, A5, A7 are each are each delayed/phase shifted 90 degrees apart from one another; when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9 it is reasonable to conclude that a similar control methodology would be used with the three actuators of Fig 9, but with the actuators shifted 120° to have a constantly repeating cycle (over 360°) as suggested in ¶0078; accordingly, the control signals to A1, A2, A3 would be delayed/phase shifted as claimed), in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set (when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9, the control signals would consecutively actuate elements 20A, 20B, 20C of the set shown in Fig 9, given the disclosure of ¶0078 which describes a repeating cycle) associated with the electrical control signals (when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9, the signal to 20A goes to the group of 20A, the signal to 20B goes to the group of 20B, and then the signal to 20C goes to the group of 20C), to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction (Fig 8, as described in ¶0072-¶0076, Fig 9, as described in ¶0077-¶0078).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known device of: the pump having the plurality of piezoelectric transducers (20A,20B,20C) in Fig 9 of May US 2022/0154734 with the known technique of using a controller (50,60) to apply phase shifted control signals to each of the piezoelectric actuators as taught in ¶0068-¶0076, Figs 5-8 of May US 2022/0154734 in order to yield the predictable results of pumping the fluid through the fluid channel.
Further it is noted that where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Regarding Claim 3: May US 2022/0154734 discloses the limitations:
wherein the at least three groups of the set comprise a first group 20A, a second group 20B, and a third group 20C, which are arranged in this order along the flow direction (Fig 9), and
wherein the at least three electrical control signals are phase-shifted versions of a periodic electrical control signal (as explained above), wherein the at least three electrical control signals are phase-shifted in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set associated with the at least three electrical control signals (as explained above) and comprise:
a first periodic electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20A in Fig 9) having a phase shift in a range of -120° to -70° (e.g. phase shifted -120° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9) and associated with the first group (the signal to 20A is associated with the first group 20A);
a second periodic electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20B in Fig 9) having a phase shift of 0° (e.g. phase shifted 0° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9), and associated with the second group (the signal to 20B is associated with the second group 20B); and
a third periodic electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20C in Fig 9) having a phase shift in a range of +70° to +120° (e.g. phase shifted 120° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9), and associated with the third group (the signal to 20C is associated with the third group 20C).
Regarding Claim 4: May US 2022/0154734 does disclose the limitations: wherein the piezoelectric transducers are organized into an array of a row and columns (the groups of transducers A1,A2,A3 are arranged in an array of one row having three columns, i.e. three total transducers A1, A2, A3 covering the channel as seen in Fig 9).
Additionally Regarding Claim 4: May US 2022/0154734 discloses the claimed limitations except for: the array of piezo electric transducers has more than one row (i.e. has rows)”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the micropump such that each group has more than one transducer in a column extending along the width of the flow channel and perpendicular to the flow direction--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having an array of piezoelectric transducers having more than one row versus the design taught by May US 2022/0154734. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the array of piezoelectric transducers has more than one row and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0064 of the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers in each group in unimportant, since it states “As an example, in FIG. 1B two piezoelectric transducers 13 are shown per group 14. Each group 14 could include more piezoelectric transducers 13 or (e.g., only) one piezoelectric transducer 13.” Because of this statement, the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers 13 in each group does not have a significant impact on the operation of the device. Additionally, it appears that May US 2022/0154734 would perform equally well with the groups of the micropump being designed such that each group has more than one transducer in a column extending along the width of the flow channel and perpendicular to the flow direction, given that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to arrange elements of a pump in order to convey fluid with the pump as desired.
Additionally or in the alternate Regarding Claim 4: May US 2022/0154734 discloses the claimed limitations except for: the array of piezo electric transducers has more than one row (i.e. has rows)”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the array of piezoelectric transducers has more than one row and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0064 of the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers in each group in unimportant, since it states “As an example, in FIG. 1B two piezoelectric transducers 13 are shown per group 14. Each group 14 could include more piezoelectric transducers 13 or (e.g., only) one piezoelectric transducer 13.” Because of this statement, the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers 13 in each group does not have a significant impact on the operation of the device. And because of this it is understood that the duplication of the piezoelectric transducer 13 in each group 14 provides no new and unexpected results.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the number of piezoelectric transducers (i.e. provide two) of each group of piezoelectric transducers such that each group has more than one transducer in a column extending along the width of the flow channel and perpendicular to the flow direction in the device of May US 2022/0154734, since the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (see MPEP 2144.04 V B).
Regarding Claim 5: May US 2022/0154734 discloses the limitations: wherein each row of piezoelectric transducers comprises at least three groups of piezoelectric transducers (when the device is constructed as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above, each group would be defined by a column of 2 actuators, and there would be 3 groups/columns; as such each row – which would extend across all three columns – would inherently comprise a part of the at least three groups of piezoelectric transducers as claimed).
Regarding Claim 18: May US 2022/0154734 discloses in Fig 9 the limitations: A method of operating an acoustic micropump (MPEP §2112.02 I Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the pump of Fig 9 is inherently operated to move fluid as shown in Fig 9) device to create a net flow of fluid along a flow direction (i.e. left to right direction in Fig 9), the acoustic micropump device including
a fluid channel for the fluid (= channel through which the fluid indicated by the arrows flows through fluid pump 10 in Fig 9, ¶0077-¶0078),
a plurality of piezoelectric transducers (= 20A,20B,20C; each element 20 is a piezoelectric element, ¶0103) arranged adjacent to the fluid channel (Fig 9),
wherein the piezoelectric transducers are organized into a set (i.e. a set of three = A1,A2,A3) comprising at least three groups (first group = A1, second group = A2, third group = A3), the groups consecutively arranged along the flow direction (Fig 9), and each group comprising at least one piezoelectric transducer (Fig 9),
wherein each piezoelectric transducer of the plurality of piezoelectric transducers comprises a respective membrane (each element 20 has a moveable element 25 (¶0063), and each element 25 is a membrane ¶0106), which is configured to vibrate when the piezoelectric transducer is electrically actuated (¶0067) and to acoustically couple to the fluid channel (¶0068-¶0075, since each element 20 vibrates to move the substance through the channel (¶0060-¶0062) the transducers 20A,20B,20C acoustically couple to the fluid channel as claimed).
Fig 9 of May US 2022/0154734 is silent regarding the limitations: a controller configured to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction, the method comprising: actuating the plurality of piezoelectric transducers using at least three periodic electrical control signals, wherein each electrical control signal is used to actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a group of the at least three groups of the set; and consecutively delaying, via the controller, the at least three electrical control signals to another in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set associated with the electrical control signals.
However, May US 2022/0154734 does disclose in Figs 1-8 the limitations:
a controller (50,60A, 60B, 60C, 60D, ¶0056-¶0057, ¶0072-¶0076) configured to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction (i.e. by driving the actuators with the controller, ¶0056-¶0057, ¶0072-¶0076), the method (MPEP §2112.02 I Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the pump of Fig 9 is inherently operated to move fluid as shown in Fig 9) comprising:
actuating the plurality of piezoelectric transducers (the plurality of piezoelectric transducers = A1, A3, A5, A7 in Fig 8; elements A1, A3, A5, A7 in Fig 8 correspond to actuators 20 for actuators 1,3,5,7 in Fig 2-7; when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9 it would actuate 20A,20B,20C; each element 20 is a piezoelectric element, ¶0103) using at least three periodic electrical control signals (at least three periodic electrical control signals = first signal from amplifier 60A to drive actuator A1 at 0° phase, second signal from amplifier 60C to drive actuator A3 at 90° phase, third signal from amplifier 60A to drive actuator A5 at 180° phase, and fourth signal from amplifier 60C at 270° phase (since A7 is offset 180° from A3 due to the different polarity like what is seen with A1 & A5); when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9, because the device of Fig 9 has only three actuators 20, its operation would require only three control signals, one for each actuator), wherein each electrical control signal is used to actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a group of the at least three groups of the set (the combination teaches this, since each group has only one piezoelectric transducer, and the respective electrical control signal actuates the transducer, it follows that each electrical control signal is used to actuate all (one) piezoelectric transducers of a group of the at least three groups of the set as claimed); and
consecutively delaying, via the controller, the at least three electrical control signals to another (¶0072-¶0076 teaches operating the actuators A1, A3, A5, A7 in a phase shifted manner to move the fluid through the fluid channel A in the device of Fig 8 – where actuator A1 (driven by the first amplifier 60A) is set at 0° phase, actuator A3 is set at 90° phase, actuator A5 is set at 180° phase, and A7 is set at 270° phase (since A7 is offset 180° from A3 due to the different polarity like what is seen with A1 & A5) – thus the four actuators A1, A3, A5, A7 are each are each delayed/phase shifted 90 degrees apart from one another; when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9 it is reasonable to conclude that a similar control methodology would be used with the three actuators of Fig 9, but with the actuators shifted 120° to have a constantly repeating cycle (over 360°) as suggested in ¶0078; accordingly, the control signals to A1, A2, A3 would be delayed/phase shifted as claimed) in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set (when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9, the control signals would consecutively actuate elements 20A, 20B, 20C of the set shown in Fig 9, given the disclosure of ¶0078 which describes a repeating cycle) associated with the electrical control signals (when the controller of Fig 8 – is used to drive the device in Fig 9, the signal to 20A goes to the group of 20A, the signal to 20B goes to the group of 20B, and then the signal to 20C goes to the group of 20C).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known device of: the pump having the plurality of piezoelectric transducers (20A,20B,20C) in Fig 9 of May US 2022/0154734 with the known technique of using a controller (50,60) to apply phase shifted control signals to each of the piezoelectric actuators as taught in ¶0068-¶0076, Figs 5-8 of May US 2022/0154734 in order to yield the predictable results of pumping the fluid through the fluid channel.
Further it is noted that where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Regarding Claim 19: May US 2022/0154734 does disclose the limitations: wherein
the at least three electrical control signals are phase-shifted versions of a periodic electrical control signal (as explained above in the rejection of claim 18):
a first electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20A in Fig 9) of the at least three electrical control signals has a phase shift in a range of -120° to -70° (e.g. phase shifted -120° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9), and is used to actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a first group (first group = 20A; first group is a group of 1) of the at least three groups of piezoelectric transducers of the set;
a second electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20B in Fig 9) of the at least three electrical control signals has a phase shift of 0° (e.g. phase shifted 0° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9), and is used to actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a second group (second group = 20B; second group is a group of 1) of the at least three groups of piezoelectric transducers of the set; and
a third electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20C in Fig 9) of the at least three electrical control signals has a phase shift in a range of +70° to +120° (e.g. phase shifted 120° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9), and is used actuate all piezoelectric transducers of a third group (third group = 20B; third group is a group of 1) of the at least three groups of piezoelectric transducers of the set; and
the first group, the second group, and the third group are arranged in this order along the flow direction (as seen in Fig 9).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal US 2007/0020124 in view of May US 2022/0154734.
Regarding Claims 1 & 18: Singhal US 2007/0020124 discloses the limitations: An acoustic micropump device (the pump is defined by the sum of its parts) for creating a net flow of fluid (e.g. air or water ¶0045) along a flow direction (as understood from Figs 1 & 4 and Figs 9 & 11 – the system creates a total/net flow of the fluid through the flow channels 12,104 of the pump; a flow direction = the direction the fluid travels through the pump, see Figs 1 & 4 and Figs 9 & 11), the acoustic micropump device comprising:
a fluid channel for the fluid (fluid channel = 12,104, ¶0045-¶0046,¶0049);
a plurality of piezoelectric transducers (= plurality of elements 220 illustrated in Fig 11, ¶0051, ¶0045, ¶0047) arranged adjacent to the fluid channel (as seen in Fig 11 each fluid channel has three pumping chambers 212, and each pumping chamber has a corresponding piezo transducer 220 arranged above it as shown in Fig 11 and as understood from Figs 4 & 5, ¶0045, ¶0047),
wherein the piezoelectric transducers (transducers 220 shown in Fig 11) are organized into a set (each set in Fig 11 corresponds to the three transducers 220 in series which cover the three pumping chambers 212 of a corresponding channel 104 in Fig 11) comprising at least three groups (i.e. three groups of 1, each group of 1 contains a transducer 220 located above a respective pumping chamber 212 in Fig 11), the groups consecutively arranged along the flow direction (in series along the flow direction as seen in Fig 11, ¶0047), and each group comprising at least one piezoelectric transducer (as explained above, each group contains one piezoelectric transducer 220),
wherein each piezoelectric transducer of the plurality of piezoelectric transducers comprises a respective membrane (each respective membrane = portion 224 (Fig 10) of diaphragm 222 located between the piezoelectric element 220 of the respective transducer and the pumping chamber 212 of the respective transducer, ¶0051-¶0052), which is configured to vibrate when the piezoelectric transducer is electrically actuated (¶0051-¶0052) and configured to acoustically couple to the fluid channel (¶0051; since the vibration of the piezo is inherently transmitted to the fluid channel through the diaphragm, the diaphragm is acoustically coupled to the fluid channel as claimed); and
a controller (drive circuit S, ¶0052) configured to actuate the plurality of piezoelectric transducers (¶0052) using at least three periodic electrical control signals (each piezo is actuated with a periodic alternating voltage signal, ¶0052, ¶0029, ¶0034; thus the three piezo transducers 220 are driven by three control signals; periodic electrical control signal = periodic alternating voltage signal that drives a respective piezo 220), each electrical control signal associated with a group of the at least three groups of the set (the groups are groups of 1; each piezo 220 has its own control signal; thus each control signal is associated with a group as claimed);
wherein the controller is configured to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction (¶0052, ¶0038).
It is unclear from the description of the Figs 9-12 embodiment how the drive circuit S described in ¶0052 of Singhal US 2007/0020124 specifically actuates the three piezoelectric transducers 220 of each set. Although ¶0052 does state that some of the piezoelectric elements 220 will be driven in-phase (in unison) while others will be driven out of phase (not in unison) to achieve desired working fluid flow rate and pressure head.
Further the description of ¶0031-¶0035 of Singhal US 2007/0020124 discusses multiple sets of electrodes 25a,25b,25c which are evenly spaced from one another (¶0035) connected to a three phase voltage source to create a traveling electric field, with the three phases each being 120 degrees out of phase with one another to create the highest flow rate. However this is done in connection with creating EHD flow.
Thus Singhal US 2007/0020124 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the controller is configured to consecutively delay the at least three electrical control signals, in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set associated with the electrical control signals. The prior art of May US 2022/0154734 which is directed to moving a fluid through a conduit using piezoelectric devices (abstract) like Singhal US 2007/0020124, is noted.
However, May US 2022/0154734 does disclose the limitations:
a controller (50,60, ¶0056) configured to actuate (i.e. drive, ¶0078) the plurality of piezoelectric transducers (when the controller 50,60 is used to drive the device in Fig 9 it would actuate 20A,20B,20C; each element 20 is a piezoelectric element, ¶0103; plurality of piezoelectric transducers = 20A,20B,20C) using at least three periodic electrical control signals (the device of Fig 9 has only three actuators 20, and thus its operation would require three control signals, one for each actuator), each electrical control signal associated with a group of the at least three groups of the set (the at least three groups = first group = A1, second group = A2, third group = A3; set of at least three groups = A1,A2,A3; it is each group of 1 has a corresponding control signal);
wherein the controller (50,60) is configured to consecutively delay the at least three electrical control signals (¶0073-¶0075 teaches operating the actuators in a phase shifted manner (as was suggested by Singhal in ¶0052) to move the fluid through the fluid channel in the device of Figs 8 – where actuator A1 is set at 0° phase, actuator A3 is set at 90° phase, actuator A5 is set at 180° phase, and A7 is set at 270° phase (since A7 is offset 180° from A3 due to the different polarity like what is seen with A1 & A5) – thus four actuators each phase shifted 90 degrees apart, it is reasonable to conclude that a similar control methodology would be used with the three actuators of Fig 9, but with the actuators shifted 120° to have a constantly repeating cycle; accordingly, the control signals to A1, A2, A3 would be delayed/phase shifted as claimed), in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set (20A, 20B, 20C of the set shown in Fig 9) associated with the electrical control signals (i.e. the signal to 20A goes to the group of 20A, the signal to 20B goes to the group of 20B, and then the signal to 20C goes to the group of 20C), to create the net flow of the fluid along the flow direction (Fig 9).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller (drive circuit S – that actuates the three piezoelectric elements 220 of each set for each channel 104, Figs 11-12) of Singhal US 2007/0020124 with the controller (50,60) providing phase-shifted actuation/control signals to the piezoelectric elements 20A,20B,20C in Fig 9 of May US 2022/0154734 in order to generate a fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet of the fluid channel (¶0072-¶0078).
Regarding Claims 3 & 19: May US 2022/0154734 discloses the limitations:
wherein the at least three groups of the set comprise a first group 20A, a second group 20B, and a third group 20C, which are arranged in this order along the flow direction (Fig 9), and
wherein the at least three electrical control signals are phase-shifted versions of a periodic electrical control signal (as explained above), wherein the at least three electrical control signals are phase-shifted in accordance with the consecutively arranged groups of the set associated with the at least three electrical control signals (as explained above) and comprise:
a first periodic electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20A in Fig 9) having a phase shift in a range of -120° to -70° (e.g. phase shifted -120° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9) and associated with the first group (the signal to 20A is associated with the first group 20A);
a second periodic electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20B in Fig 9) having a phase shift of 0° (e.g. phase shifted 0° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9), and associated with the second group (the signal to 20B is associated with the second group 20B); and
a third periodic electrical control signal (i.e. signal to 20C in Fig 9) having a phase shift in a range of +70° to +120° (e.g. phase shifted 120° relative to the signal to actuator A2 in Fig 9), and associated with the third group (the signal to 20C is associated with the third group 20C).
Regarding Claim 4: Singhal US 2007/0020124 as modified by May US 2022/0154734 does disclose the limitations: wherein the piezoelectric transducers are organized into an array of a row and columns (the groups of transducers 220 are arranged in an array of one row having three columns, i.e. three total transducers 220 covering channel 104 as seen in Fig 11).
Additionally Regarding Claim 4: Singhal US 2007/0020124 as modified by May US 2022/0154734 discloses the claimed limitations except for: the array of piezo electric transducers has more than one row (i.e. has rows)”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the micropump such that each group has more than one transducer in a column extending along the width of the flow channel and perpendicular to the flow direction--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having an array of piezoelectric transducers having more than one row versus the design taught by Singhal US 2007/0020124 as modified by May US 2022/0154734. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the array of piezoelectric transducers has more than one row and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0064 of the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers in each group in unimportant, since it states “As an example, in FIG. 1B two piezoelectric transducers 13 are shown per group 14. Each group 14 could include more piezoelectric transducers 13 or (e.g., only) one piezoelectric transducer 13.” Because of this statement, the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers 13 in each group does not have a significant impact on the operation of the device. Additionally, it appears that Singhal US 2007/0020124 as modified by May US 2022/0154734 would perform equally well with the groups of the micropump being designed such that each group has more than one transducer in a column extending along the width of the flow channel and perpendicular to the flow direction, given that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to arrange elements of a pump in order to convey fluid with the pump as desired.
Additionally or in the alternate Regarding Claim 4: Singhal US 2007/0020124 as modified by May US 2022/0154734 discloses the claimed limitations except for: the array of piezo electric transducers has more than one row (i.e. has rows)”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the array of piezoelectric transducers has more than one row and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0064 of the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers in each group in unimportant, since it states “As an example, in FIG. 1B two piezoelectric transducers 13 are shown per group 14. Each group 14 could include more piezoelectric transducers 13 or (e.g., only) one piezoelectric transducer 13.” Because of this statement, the SPEC indicates that the number of piezoelectric transducers 13 in each group does not have a significant impact on the operation of the device. And because of this it is understood that the duplication of the piezoelectric transducer 13 in each group 14 provides no new and unexpected results.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the number of piezoelectric transducers (i.e. provide two) of each group of piezoelectric transducers such that each group has more than one transducer in a column extending along the width of the flow channel and perpendicular to the flow direction in the device of Singhal US 2007/0020124 as modified by May US 2022/0154734, since the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (see MPEP 2144.04 V B).
Regarding Claim 7: Singhal US 2007/0020124 does disclose the limitations: wherein the fluid channel is bonded to the array of piezoelectric transducers (i.e. bonded to the transducers via sheet 222, ¶0051).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H02140475 – discloses a piezoelectric peristaltic pump.
Haentjens USPN 4171852 – discloses a pump using ultrasonic waves to move a substance through a pipe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights