DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 31 July 2025. Claims 1 – 18 are pending and currently being examined.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang032 (PG Pub US 20220225032 A1).
In Re Claim 1, the Figure 15 embodiment of Liang032 discloses a stacked-APG (APG: air-pulse generating) device (400), comprising: a plurality (two) of APG units (100, 100’) stacked with each other; wherein an APG unit comprises a membrane (102 or 102’), the membrane is actuated to move in a membrane movement direction (vertical line in Figure 15); wherein the plurality of APG units (100, 100’) is stacked in the membrane movement direction (paragraphs [0120], [0122]; Figure 15).
In Re Claim 2, Liang032 discloses that the plurality of APG units (100, 100’) comprises a plurality of flap pairs (one pair is labeled 102 twice, another pair is labeled 102’ twice); wherein plurality of flap pairs (102, 102’) performs common mode movements (paragraph [0088] discloses that the flaps of each pair moves synchronously; paragraph [0122] discloses that the displacement profiles of 102 and 102’ are the same).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toonder (PG Pub US 20080170936 A1) in view of Liang032 (PG Pub US 20220225032 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Figure 6 of Toonder discloses an APG (APG: air-pulse generating) device (although the complex fluids in paragraph [0059] have not specifically been disclosed as air, the type of medium does not make a structural distinction over the prior art), comprising: a plurality of APG units (30; each actuator element on the bottom wall and its opposite actuator element on the top wall constitutes one APG unit); wherein an APG unit comprises a membrane (30), the membrane is actuated to move in a membrane movement direction (horizontal line in Figure 6) ;wherein the plurality of APG units is arranged in the membrane movement direction (Figure 6 shows three positions of each actuating element); (paragraphs [0086]-[0092]; Figure 6).
Toonder does not disclose that the plurality of APG units are stacked with each other (because all units share a common wall).
However, the Figure 15 embodiment of Liang032 discloses a stacked-APG (APG: air-pulse generating) device (400), comprising: two APG units (100, 100’) stacked with each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 6 of Toonder
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the plurality of APG units such that they are stacked with each other as taught by Liang032 (three stacked units are shown in the annotated figure above) because it is only a matter of splitting the two common walls into individual wall sections that are joined/stacked together, and it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements joined together is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C),
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses that the plurality of APG units comprises a plurality of flap pairs (each actuator 30 on one wall and its opposite on the other wall form a flap pair); wherein plurality of flap pairs performs common mode movements (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2).
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses that the plurality of APG units comprises a first APG unit (one of the annotated rectangles in the above figure above) and a second APG unit (another of the annotated rectangles in the above figure adjacent to the first rectangle);wherein the first APG unit is directly stacked on the second APG unit; wherein the first APG unit comprises a first flap pair (opposite actuators 30) and the second APG unit comprises a second flap pair (opposite actuators 30); wherein the first flap pair performs a first common mode movement and the second flap pair performs a second common mode movement (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2); wherein the first common mode movement is opposite to the second common mode movement (paragraph [0091] states that the movement can be out of phase; paragraph [0092] states that movement can be in opposite directions; although movement in opposite directions as a pair is not explicitly disclosed, this is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and Toonder discloses that when the first flap pair moves toward a first direction (for example from left to right) as the first common mode movement, the second flap pair moves toward a second direction opposite to the first direction as the second common mode movement (paragraph [0092] states that movement can be in opposite directions; although movement in opposite directions as a pair is not explicitly disclosed, this is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 4, and Toonder discloses that a third APG unit (third of the annotated rectangles in the above figure adjacent to the second rectangle); wherein the second APG unit is directly stacked on the third APG unit as depicted; wherein the third APG unit comprises a third flap pair (opposite actuators 30); wherein the third flap pair performs a third common mode movement (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2).
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and although Toonder does not explicitly disclose that the first flap pair moves toward a first direction as the first common mode movement, the third flap pair moves toward the first direction as the third common mode movement, when the second flap pair moves in the opposite direction, this is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II (note that each flap 30 can be individually operated as stated in paragraphs [0091] and [0092]).
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses a plurality of flap pairs (opposite actuators 30), and Liang032 discloses that a flap pair (102a, 102b) performs differential mode movements (paragraph [0088]: “two membranes (102a and 102b) to move symmetrically, in opposite direction”; also see flap pair 101 and 103 in Figure 7 which also exhibit differential mode movement). Note that each actuator/flap (30) of Toonder can be operated individually (paragraphs [0091] and [0092]). Operating each flap pair of Toonder in a differential mode movement as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses that the plurality of APG units comprises a first APG unit (one of the annotated rectangles in the above figure above) and a second APG unit (another of the annotated rectangles in the above figure adjacent to the first rectangle); wherein the first APG unit is directly stacked on the second APG unit; wherein the first APG unit comprises a first flap pair (opposite actuators 30) and the second APG unit comprises a second flap pair (adjacent opposite actuators 30); wherein the first flap pair performs a first differential mode movement and the second flap pair performs a second differential mode movement (the differential mode movement is taught by Liang032 - 102a, 102b; paragraph [0088]: “two membranes (102a and 102b) to move symmetrically, in opposite direction”; also see flap pair 101 and 103 in Figure 7 which also exhibit differential mode movement). Note that each actuator/flap (30) of Toonder can be operated individually (paragraphs [0091] and [0092]). Operating a flap pair of Toonder in a differential mode movement as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, and Liang032 discloses operating a flap pair (101, 103) in a differential mode (Figure 7; paragraph [0088]) as a virtual valve (paragraph [0084]). Operating the first and second flap pairs of Toonder in differential mode movement to form a virtual valve as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode/virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claims 10 and 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and the operation of the virtual valves is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap of Toonder which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (opening or closing a virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses a third APG unit (third of the annotated rectangles in the above figure adjacent to the second rectangle); wherein the second APG unit is directly stacked on the third APG unit (second and third annotated rectangles); wherein the third APG unit comprises a third flap pair (opposite actuators 30); and Liang032 discloses operating a flap pair (101, 103) in a differential mode (Figure 7; paragraph [0088]) as a virtual valve (paragraph [0084]). Operating the third flap pair of Toonder in a differential mode movement to form a virtual valve as taught by Liang032 is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap of Toonder which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (common mode or differential mode/virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claims 13 and 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 12, and the operation of the virtual valves is only a manner of operating each individual actuator/flap of Toonder which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114-II). Also see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E which states that choosing from a finite number of options (opening or closing a virtual valve) would be obvious when the results of the choice are predictable.
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Toonder discloses that the stacked-APG device is driven by a modulation driving signal (paragraph [0006]: “electric signals”) to perform a common mode movement (the depicted movement of each pair in Figure 6 is the same as applicant’s common mode movement 120.1 and 120. 2 in Figures 1 and 2).
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Liang032 discloses that the stacked-APG device (400) is driven by a demodulation driving signal (paragraph [088]) to perform a differential mode movement (paragraph [0088]: “to move symmetrically, in opposite direction”).
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and Liang032 discloses electrodes associated with the flaps (paragraph [0098]), and a modulation signal/demodulation signal (because paragraph [0088] states that the same flaps 102a/102b can be moved synchronously or in opposite directions), and Toonder discloses that actuator/flap (30) has first and second electrodes (paragraph [0117]).
In Re Claim 18, the combined references above discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and Liang032 discloses λ as a wavelength corresponding to a pulse rate of the stacked-APG stacked device (paragraph [0032]), and paragraph [0123] discloses that λ is generally much longer than a dimension of the stacked-APG device (Figure 15), so the dimension is much shorter than λ, which establishes the dimension as a result effective variable. The spacing between membranes is shorter than the dimension (because the membranes are inside the APG device), so the spacing is also much shorter than λ.
Although Liange032 does not specifically disclose that the spacing is less than 0.16 λ (i.e. λ/2π), the claimed range would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is not being relied upon, it is being made of record because it is considered to be pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Liang (US Patent 10,567,866 B1) discloses a stacked APG device (300) having a plurality of (2 or more) stacks (Figure 23; Column 26, Lines 49 – 55).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights