DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 26 June 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “402” has been used to designate both fluid path and inter base body connection (in paragraph 81).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huff (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0097108).
Regarding claim 1, Huff discloses a microvalve 90, comprising:
a base body 95/96 with a cavity 91, at least one first opening 94/97, and at least one second opening 93, each of the at least one first opening and the at least one second opening extending into the cavity;
a deflectable membrane 112, which separates the cavity into a first chamber (91 above 112) and a second chamber (91 below 112), the deflectable membrane has at least one through-hole 92 extending between the first chamber and the second chamber; and
an actuating element 105/106/107, which is supported by the base body and contacts the deflectable membrane, the actuating element is operable to deflect the membrane to move between at least two positions (FIG. 7A, 7B) (FIG. 7A, 7B; Paragraph 73-77).
Regarding claim 2, Huff discloses the at least one first opening is arranged to extend into the first chamber and the at least one second opening is arranged to extend into the second chamber (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 3, Huff discloses at least one of the at least one first opening and the at least one second opening has a valve seat (at 103, at 104) (FIG. 7A, 7B; Paragraph 76).
Regarding claim 4, Huff discloses the deflectable membrane is operable to contact the valve seat to close the at least one first opening or the at least one second opening in one of the at least two positions (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 5, Huff discloses the at least one through-hole is arranged so as to remain unobstructed in all of the at least two positions (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 6, Huff discloses the actuating element includes at least one piezoelectric drive element that is ring shaped (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 7, Huff discloses the deflectable membrane buckles upon activation of the at least one piezoelectric drive element (FIG. 7B).
Regarding claim 8, Huff discloses the at least one piezoelectric drive element is supported (by 102/108 and 95/96) around a peripheral region of the at least one piezoelectric drive element and is moveable (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 9, Huff discloses the at least one through-hole is arranged in a region of the deflectable membrane that is not covered by the at least one piezoelectric drive element and is outside a center of the deflectable membrane (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 10, Huff discloses the actuating element includes a first piezoelectric drive element 106 and a second piezoelectric drive element 107, the deflectable membrane is supported between the first piezoelectric drive element and the second piezoelectric drive element (FIG. 7A, 7B; Paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 11, Huff discloses two first openings 94/97 extend into the first chamber and one second opening extends into the second chamber (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 12, Huff discloses the second opening and one of the two first openings opposing the second opening each have a valve seat 103/104 that is contactable by the deflectable membrane (FIG. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 13, Huff discloses the at least one through-hole is arranged in a region of the deflectable membrane that does not contact the valve seats (FIG. 7A, 7B).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Hughes (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0146017).
Regarding claim 14, Huff discloses at least one microvalve 90 including:
a base body 95/96with a cavity 91, at least one first opening 94/97, and at least one second opening 93, each of the at least one first opening and the at least one second opening extending into the cavity;
a deflectable membrane 112, which separates the cavity into a first chamber (91 above 112) and a second chamber (91 below 112), the deflectable membrane has at least one through-hole 92 extending between the first chamber and the second chamber; and
an actuating element 105/106/107, which is supported by the base body and contacts the deflectable membrane, the actuating element is operable to deflect the membrane to move between at least two positions (FIG. 7A, 7B) (FIG. 7A, 7B; Paragraph 73-77).
Huff is silent regarding a microvalve array.
However, Hughes teaches placing a series of microvalves in an array (FIG. 19; Paragraph 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Huff by arranging a plurality of microvalves in an array, as taught by Hughes, for the purpose of more precisely controlling the characteristics of the fluid passing through the microvalve system and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Huff, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 14.
Huff/Hughes further teaches the at least one microvalve includes a first microvalve and a second microvalve that are interconnected by a fluid path (Hughes Paragraph 48) connected to the at least one first opening of each of the first microvalve and the second microvalve (Hughes FIG. 19; Paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 16, Huff, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 15.
Huff/Hughes further teaches the at least one first opening of the first microvalve is closable by movement of the deflectable membrane of the first microvalve and the at least one first opening of the second microvalve is closable by movement of the deflectable membrane of the second microvalve (Huff FIG. 7A, 7B; Hughes FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 17, Huff, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 15.
Huff/Hughes further teaches the first microvalve and the second microvalve each have two second openings, the deflectable membrane of the first microvalve is movable to close either the at least one first opening of the first microvalve or one of the second openings of the first microvalve opposite the at least one first opening, and the deflectable membrane of the second microvalve is movable to close either the at least one first opening of the second microvalve or one of the second openings of the second microvalve opposite the at least one first opening (Huff FIG. 7A, 7B; Hughes FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 18, Huff, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 14.
Huff/Hughes further teaches the at least one microvalve includes a first microvalve and a second microvalve that are interconnected by a fluid path (Hughes Paragraph 48) connected to the at least one second opening of each of the first microvalve and the second microvalve (Hughes FIG. 19; Paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 19, Huff, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 14.
Huff/Hughes further teaches the at least one second opening of the first microvalve cannot be closed by movement of the deflectable membrane of the first microvalve and the at least one second opening of the second microvalve cannot be closed by movement of the deflectable membrane of the second microvalve (Huff FIG. 7A, 7B; Hughes FIG. 19).
Claim 20 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Hughes in further view of Sprague (U.S. Patent 10,518,262).
Regarding claim 20, Huff, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 14.
Huff is silent regarding a microvalve having a deflectable membrane without a through-hole.
However, Sprague teaches a microvalve 2600 having a deflectable membrane 26201 without a through-hole (FIG. 16A, 16B; Col. 18 ln 11-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Huff by arranging a plurality of microvalves in an array, as taught by Hughes, and implementing a microvalve having a deflectable membrane without a through hole, as taught by Sprague, for the purpose of more precisely controlling the characteristics of the fluid passing through the microvalve system by utilizing a known microvalve capable of achieving the desired characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cabuz (U.S. Patent 6,837,476) discloses a microvalve similar to the one described in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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 supervisor, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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 D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights