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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/1/2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 19, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang US 20220315412 (hereafter Liang II).
Liang II discloses:
1. (Original): An air moving device, comprising: a film structure comprising a flap pair (flap pairs in e.g. Figs 3A-3B; 5A-5B; 8A-8B), wherein the flap pair comprises a first flap and a second flap opposite to each other (see e.g. left and right flaps in e.g. Figs 3A-3B; 5A-5B; 8A-8B); a first actuator (left 120 in e.g. Figs 3A-3B; 5A-5B; 8A-8B) disposed on the first flap and a second actuator (right 120 in e.g. Figs 3A-3B; 5A-5B; 8A-8B) disposed on the second flap; wherein the first actuator comprises a first electrode and a second electrode (first and second electrodes corresponding to the two electrodes DV1 in e.g. Figs 3B; 5B; 8B), and the second actuator comprises a third electrode and a fourth electrode (third and fourth electrodes correspond to two electrodes DV2 in e.g. Figs 3B; 5B; 8B); wherein the first electrode receives a first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives a second demodulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a differential-mode movement (see e.g. Fig 8B wherein the signal on either of electrodes DV1 and the signal on either of the electrodes DV2 which cause the differential mode movement in Fig 8B are considered the demodulation signal); wherein the second electrode and the fourth electrode receive a modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a common-mode movement (see e.g. Fig 5B wherein the signal on the other of the electrodes DV1 and the signal on the other of the electrodes DV2 which cause the common mode movement in Fig 8B are considered the modulation signal).
5. (Currently amended): The air moving device of claim 1, comprising: a covering structure (see e.g. HSS in Fig 3A);wherein a front chamber is formed between the film structure and the covering structure (see chamber formed above left and right 120 between 120 and HSS in e.g. Fig 3A).
19. (Original): The air moving device of claim 1, wherein the air moving device is formed on a base (BS); wherein a back cavity is formed within the base (CB1); wherein an airflow flows between an ambience (see ambient in e.g. Fig 3A) and the back cavity (via BVT in e.g. Fig 3A and silicon in 0061).
24. (Original): The air moving device of claim 1, wherein the air moving device is disposed on a base (BS) or a substrate; wherein a channel (BVT) is formed within the base or the substrate.
25. (Original): The air moving device of claim 24, wherein an airflow produced by the air moving device flows through the channel (see e.g. Fig 3A From H02 to CB1 via BVT).
26. (Currently amended): The air moving device of claim 1, comprising: a top-intake covering structure (see e.g. HO1 in Fig 3A) or a side-intake covering structure (see e.g. HO2 in Fig 3A).
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.
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) 1-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US 20220225031 in view of Liang US 20220315412 (hereafter Liang II).
Liang discloses:
1. (Original): An air moving device, comprising: a film structure comprising a flap pair (flap pairs 102C or 102D in e.g. 6, 101 and 103 in Fig 7, and 102 in Fig 14), wherein the flap pair comprises a first flap and a second flap opposite to each other (see e.g. left and right flaps 102C or 102D e.g. Figs 6, 101 and 103 in Fig 7, and left and right 102 in Fig 14); the flap pair performs a differential-mode movement (see e.g. Fig 7); the flap pair performs a common-mode movement (see e.g. Figs 6 and 14).
The flaps of Liang would require an actuator to actuate movement as demonstrated in e.g. Figs 6-7 and 14. However, Liang does not specify the details of such actuators.
Liang II disclose a first actuator (left 120 in e.g. Figs 3A-3B; 5A-5B; 8A-8B) disposed on the first flap and a second actuator (right 120 in e.g. Figs 3A-3B; 5A-5B; 8A-8B) disposed on the second flap; wherein the first actuator comprises a first electrode and a second electrode (electrodes corresponding to DV1 in e.g. Figs 3B; 5B; 8B), and the second actuator comprises a third electrode and a fourth electrode (electrodes corresponding to DV2 in e.g. Figs 3B; 5B; 8B); wherein the first electrode receives a first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives a second demodulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a differential-mode movement (see e.g. Fig 8B wherein the signal on either of electrodes DV1 and the signal on either of the electrodes DV2 which cause the differential mode movement in Fig 8B are considered the demodulation signal); wherein the second electrode and the fourth electrode receive a modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a common-mode movement (see e.g. Fig 5B wherein the signal on the other of the electrodes DV1 and the signal on the other of the electrodes DV2 which cause the common mode movement in Fig 8B are considered the modulation signal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize actuators as taught by Liang II in the system of Liang to gain the benefit of enabling driving of the flap pairs according to move according to known movements of flap pairs.
Liang as modified above discloses:
2. (Original): The air moving device of claim 1, wherein the air moving device produces a plurality of air pulses at an ultrasonic pulse rate (see e.g. 24K Hz in 0131 of Liang).
3. (Original): The air moving device of claim 2, wherein the differential-mode movement of the flap pair forms a virtual valve or an opening at an opening rate corresponding to the ultrasonic pulse rate (see e.g. 24k Hz in 0131 of Liang).
4. (Original): The air moving device of claim 2, wherein during a time period, the plurality of air pulses are unipolar (see e.g. Figs 6 and 14 of Liang and Figs 5A-5B of Laing II). 5. (Currently amended): The air moving device of claim 1, comprising: a covering structure (see e.g. 804T in Fig 6 of Liang); wherein a front chamber is formed between the film structure and the covering structure (see e.g. 105 in Fig 6 of Liang).
Regarding claim 8, Liang does not disclose wherein an integrated circuit chip is formed on the covering structure.
However, Liang II discloses the use of an ICC on a PCB (see e.g. Fig 36 with ICC on SB1 wherein SB1 is a circuit board as in 0223 of K=Laing II).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an ICC as taught by Liang II in the system of Liang to gain the benefit of utilizing an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip as taught by Liang II in 0242 for utilizing a known way to provide application specific control/functionality for an air moving device.
Claims 6-7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US 20220225031 in view of Liang US 20220315412 (hereafter Liang II) in further view of Akram US 6064116.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Liang as modified above does not specifically disclose the material of the printed circuit board and thus does not specifically disclose wherein the covering structure is made of a wafer material or made of silicon. However, Akram discloses “the term PCB as employed herein including conductor-carrying substrates of silicon” in col 3 lines 11-13. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize silicon as a material for the PCB of Liang as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known material for PCBs.
7. (Original): The air moving device of claim 5, wherein the film structure and the covering structure are made of the same material (see col 3 lines 11-13 of Akram for the PCB and “The membrane structure 12 and the valve structure 11 may have thin film structure, which may, e.g., be fabricated by MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical System) fabrication process using SOI (silicon/Si of insulator) or POI (Poly-Si/polysilicon on insulator) wafers, but not limited thereto.” in 0026 of Liang).
17. (Original): The air moving device of claim 1, a through silicon via (see e.g. see col 3 lines 11-13 of Akram for the PCB, and vias in 0130 of Liang).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US 20220315412 (hereafter Liang II).
Regarding claim 14, Liang II discloses a side-firing covering structure (see e.g. HO2 in Fig 3A of Liang II).
Alternatively, see Figs 37, 44, and 46-47 of Laing II.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a side firing structure as taught covering structure in any of the embodiments of Liang II to gain the benefit of directing air in a desired direction.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US 20220315412 (hereafter Liang II) in view of Liang US 20220225031.
Regarding claim 15, Liang II discloses wherein the air moving device is disposed on a flexible printed circuit board (see 0061 including (emphasis added): “The base BS may be hard or flexible, wherein the base BS may include silicon, germanium, glass, plastic, quartz, sapphire, metal, polymer (e.g., polyimide (PI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET)), any other suitable material or a combination thereof. As an example, the base BS may be a circuit board including a laminate (e.g., copper clad laminate, CCL), a land grid array (LGA) board or any other suitable board containing conductive material, but not limited thereto. In some embodiments, the base BS may be a substrate” wherein the circuit of the circuit board would be printed.). Additionally, Liang disclose the use of a printed circuit board (see e.g. 0130).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a printing process to manufacture the circuit board of Liang II as taught by Liang to gain the benefit of utilizing a known manufacturing process for circuit boards.
Liang II as modified above discloses:
Regarding claim 16, Liang II discloses a driving signal from a driving circuit is connected to the actuator 120 via DV1 and DV2 to provide an electrical signal to the air moving device (flap pairs) wherein the driving circuit is element 160 (see e.g. 0134). The location of this driving circuit 160 is not specified. However, the driving circuit 160 is an integrated circuit (see e.g. 0144), and Figs 36-37 have integrated circuits on the base circuit board SB1 (see e.g. flexible and circuit board in 0223). Therefore, it would be obvious to place an integrated circuit on any of the embodiments of Liang II on the flexible circuit board (such as BS in Fig 3A) to gain the benefit of using a known location for integrated circuits.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.04 V.I. C. makes it clear that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify operation of the air moving device is held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, a mere change in location of the driving circuit of Liang II as modified above without any change in operation of the air moving device is an obvious modification [see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to provide many arguments concerning limitations which are not claimed.
Applicant argues:
1. Claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103
(1) Claim 1
In the air moving device of claim 1, the first actuator includes the first electrode and the second electrode, the second actuator includes the third electrode and the fourth electrode. Furthermore, the first electrode receives the first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives the second demodulation signal, such that the flap pair performs the differential-mode movement. The second electrode and the fourth electrode receive the modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs the common-mode movement.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. The underlined portions of apparatus claim 1 (see below) are the only structural limitations in the claim. The final two “wherein” clauses are not structural limitations but rather a recitation of the manner of operating the claimed apparatus. As per MPEP 2114 II, the “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Liang II discloses the claimed structure of claim 1 and is structurally capable of being operated in the claimed manner, so Liang II meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. Thus, applicant’s arguments are directed to limitations that cannot differentiate from Liang II as they are not structural limitations but rather method steps directed to the manner of operating the device in an apparatus claim. This analysis also applies to claims 2-4 which are apparatus claims that do not contain structural limitations but rather method steps and Liang as Liang II disclose the claimed structure required in claims 2-4.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Secondly, how can applicant argue that prior art does not teach the claim limitations common mode movement, differential mode movement, demodulation signal, and modulation signal when applicant has not provided a “clear and precise” meaning for these newly made up terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a)? Merely providing an example embodiment(s) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “common mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “differential mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “demodulation signal”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “modulation signal”?
MPEP 2173.05(a) New Terminology
I. THE MEANING OF EVERY TERM SHOULD BE APPARENT
The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Applicants need not confine themselves to the terminology used in the prior art, but are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. During patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969). See also MPEP § 2111 - § 2111.01.
Applicant is asked to provide a clear and precise meaning for common mode movement, a clear and precise meaning for differential mode movement, a clear and precise meaning for modulation signal, and a clear and precise meaning for demodulation signal. Merely providing an example embodiment(s) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.
For example, in claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,943,585, applicant claims “ the flap pair is actuated to perform a common mode movement and a differential mode movement simultaneously”. What in particular is a common mode movement and what in particular is a differential mode movement? How can these movements be performed by a flap pair simultaneously? Applicant continues to argue that prior art does not teach the claim limitations common mode movement, differential mode movement, demodulation signal, and modulation signal when applicant refuses to provide a “clear and precise” meaning for these newly made up terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I. Does applicant think they can make up new terminology without providing a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.? Merely providing an example embodiment(s) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I., and applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
MPEP 2111.01
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
Applicant argues:
According to the U.S. Application No. 19/007,580 of which the present application is the continuation-in-part, the modulation-driving signal and the demodulation-driving signal are referred to US Patent No. 11,943,585 (US Patent No. 11,943,585 is also shown in the paragraph [0040] of the present application) and US Application No. 18/624,105. Note that US Patent No. 11,943,585 and the present application are owned by the same entity, namely xMEMS Labs, Inc., not later than the effective filing date of the instant application, and thus, US Patent No. 11,943,585 falls within the common ownership exception provided by 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and should not be relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Note that, according to [0040] of the present application, "content of US Patent Appl. No. 19/315,870 Reply to Office action of June 01, 2026 No. 11,943,585, No. 12,356,141, and Application No. 19/007,580, 19/071,774 is incorporated herein by reference".
In the paragraph [0060] of US Patent No. 11,943,585 and the paragraph [0054] of US Application No. 18/624,105, the modulation-driving signal SM can be viewed as pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signal which is modulated according to the input audio signal SIN, the toggling rate of polarity (with respect to a constant voltage) of the modulation-driving signal SM related to the operating cycle Tcy, wherein the operating cycle Tcy is related to the ultrasonic carrier frequency fuc (paragraph [0048] of US Application No. 18/624,105). In other words, the modulation-driving signal SM can be viewed as comprising a pulse amplitude modulation signal or comprising PAM-modulated pulses with alternating polarities with respect to the constant voltage.
In the paragraph [0061] of US Patent No. 11,943,585 and the paragraph [0055] of US Application No. 18/624,105, the demodulation-driving signals S101 and S103 comprise two driving pulses of equal amplitude but with opposite polarities (with respect to a constant/average voltage), and the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 is related to the ultrasonic carrier frequency fuc. The waveform of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 can be viewed as a periodic signal.
Furthermore, because the modulation-driving signal SM and the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 are related to the ultrasonic carrier frequency fuc, the modulation-driving signal SM and the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 are related to each other. For example, the toggling rate of the modulation-driving signal SM is twice of the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 (e.g., FIG. 2 of US Patent No. 11,943,585), the toggling rate of the modulation-driving signal SM is the same as the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103, or a ratio of the toggling rate of the modulation-driving signal SM to the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 can be a suitable value.
The common-mode movement is performed according to the aforementioned modulation-driving signal SM, the differential-mode movement is performed according to the aforementioned demodulation-driving signal S101/S103, and a special actuation is
performed according to the modulation-driving signal SM and the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103. For example, according to the paragraphs [0092]-[0093] and FIG. 13 of US Patent No. 11,943,585, bottom electrodes of the actuator 101A/103A receive the common mode modulation-driving signal SM, while top electrodes of the actuator 101A/103A receive the differential mode demodulation-driving signal S101(-SV)/S103(+SV), such that the "modulation operation (i.e., common-mode
movement)" and the "demodulation operation (i.e., differential-mode movement)" are performed by the same flap pair 102 at the same time.
Namely, because of the content "the first electrode receives a first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives a second demodulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a differential-mode movement" and the content "the second electrode and the fourth electrode receive a modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a common-mode movement" recited in claim 1 of the present application, the common-mode movement and the differential-mode movement could be performed, and the common-mode movement and the differential-mode movement could be performed by the same flap pair at the same time in certain condition.
According to the above, the details and characteristics of the demodulation signal and the modulation signal can be clearly and distinctly known based on the present application, US Patent No. 11,943,585 and US Application No. 18/624,105.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, applicant again argues “can be viewed as” which confirms that, at best, applicant relies on an example embodiment(s). It is IMPROPER to import particular examples/embodiments into the claim where the claim language is broader than the embodiment (See MPEP 2111.01). This is confirmed in applicant’s specification as filed at 0080, 18/625,105 in the specification as filed at 0142, and col 24 lines 51-56 of US Patent Publication Number 11943585: “Those skilled in the art will readily observe that numerous modifications and alterations of the device and method may be made while retaining the teachings of the invention. Accordingly, the above disclosure should be construed as limited only by the metes and bounds of the appended claims. ”. This can also be confirmed in Patent Number 11943585 in the specification as filed at 0007, 18/625,105 in the specification as filed at 0010, and applicant’s specification as filed at 0011: “These and other objectives of the present invention will no doubt become obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art after reading the following detailed description of the preferred embodiment that is illustrated in the various figures and drawings”. Also, 0060 of 18/321,759 begins with “In an embodiment”. Applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
MPEP 2111.01
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
Secondly, applicant argues the prior art does not teach the claim limitations common mode movement, differential mode movement, demodulation signal, and modulation signal. However, as detailed above applicant has not provided a “clear and precise” meaning for these newly made up terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I. Merely providing an example embodiment(s) (i.e., “can be viewed as”) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “common mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “differential mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “demodulation signal”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “modulation signal”?
How can applicant argue that prior art does not teach the claim limitations common mode movement, differential mode movement, demodulation signal, and modulation signal when applicant has not provided a “clear and precise” meaning for these newly made up terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a)? Merely providing an example embodiment(s) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I., and applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
Thirdly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signal; the demodulation-driving signals S101 and S103 comprise two driving pulses of equal amplitude but with opposite polarities (with respect to a constant/average voltage), and the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 is related to the ultrasonic carrier frequency fuc. The waveform of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 can be viewed as a periodic signal.; because the modulation-driving signal SM and the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 are related to the ultrasonic carrier frequency fuc, the modulation-driving signal SM and the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 are related to each other. For example, the toggling rate of the modulation-driving signal SM is twice of the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 (e.g., FIG. 2 of US Patent No. 11,943,585), the toggling rate of the modulation-driving signal SM is the same as the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103, or a ratio of the toggling rate of the modulation-driving signal SM to the toggling rate of the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103 can be a suitable value; The common-mode movement is performed according to the aforementioned modulation-driving signal SM, the differential-mode movement is performed according to the aforementioned demodulation-driving signal S101/S103, and a special actuation is performed according to the modulation-driving signal SM and the demodulation-driving signal S101/S103; bottom electrodes of the actuator 101A/103A receive the common mode modulation-driving signal SM, while top electrodes of the actuator 101A/103A receive the differential mode demodulation-driving signal S101(-SV)/S103(+SV), such that the "modulation operation (i.e., common-mode movement)" and the "demodulation operation (i.e., differential-mode movement)" are performed by the same flap pair 102 at the same time.; Namely, because of the content "the first electrode receives a first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives a second demodulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a differential-mode movement" and the content "the second electrode and the fourth electrode receive a modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a common-mode movement" recited in claim 1 of the present application, the common-mode movement and the differential-mode movement could be performed, and the common-mode movement and the differential-mode movement could be performed by the same flap pair at the same time in certain condition.] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Fourthly, claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. The underlined portions of apparatus claim 1 (see below) are the only structural limitations in the claim. The final two “wherein” clauses are not structural limitations but rather a recitation of the manner of operating the claimed apparatus. As per MPEP 2114 II, the “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Liang II discloses the claimed structure of claim 1 and is structurally capable of being operated in the claimed manner, so Liang II meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. Thus, applicant’s arguments are directed to limitations that cannot differentiate from Liang II as they are not structural limitations but rather method steps directed to the manner of operating the device in an apparatus claim. This analysis also applies to claims 2-4 which are apparatus claims that do not contain structural limitations but rather method steps and Liang as Liang II disclose the claimed structure required in claims 2-4.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues:
Thus, not every signal is capable of serving as the demodulation signal and/or the modulation signal.
Examiner’s reply:
This is a very important statement by applicant which shows the importance of having a “clear and precise” meaning of these claim terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “demodulation signal”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “modulation signal”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “common mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “differential mode movement”?
How can applicant argue that prior art does not teach the claim limitations common mode movement, differential mode movement, demodulation signal, and modulation signal when applicant has not provided a “clear and precise” meaning for these newly made up terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.? Merely providing an example embodiment(s) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I., and applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
Applicant argues:
It is difficult for those skilled in the art to use other signals to serve as the demodulation signal and the modulation signal.
Examiner’s reply:
This is a another very important statement by applicant which shows the importance of having a “clear and precise” meaning of these terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “demodulation signal”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “modulation signal”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “common mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “differential mode movement”?
How can applicant argue that prior art does not teach the claim limitations common mode movement, differential mode movement, demodulation signal, and modulation signal when applicant has not provided a “clear and precise” meaning for these newly made up terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.? Merely providing an example embodiment(s) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I., and applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
Applicant argues:
However, in Liang II (US 2022/0315412), according to the first driving method described in the paragraphs [0101]-[0104] and FIG. 6, the actuating portions 120a and 120b are driven by the same DC signal with the same voltage difference. Thus, based on the present application, US Patent No. 11,943,585 and US Application No. 18/624,105, this driving signal of Liang II is different from the demodulation signal and the modulation signal, and should not serve as the demodulation signal and the modulation signal.
Examiner’s reply:
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “common mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “differential mode movement”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “demodulation signal”?
What in particular is the “clear and precise” meaning of the newly made up terminology “modulation signal”?
How can applicant argue that prior art does not teach the claim limitations common mode movement, differential mode movement, demodulation signal, and modulation signal when applicant has not provided a “clear and precise” meaning for these newly made up terms as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I.? Merely providing an example embodiment(s) is not a “clear and precise” meaning as required by MPEP 2173.05(a) I., and applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
Applicant argues:
According to the second driving method described in the paragraphs [0116]-[0129] of Liang II, in the third mode (common-mode movement) shown in FIG. 5B, the actuating portions 120a and 120b are floating or receive the ground voltage (i.e., the first signal DV1 and the second signal DV2 is OV). Therefore, the first signal DV1 and the second signal DV2 in the third mode of Liang II are totally different from the modulation-driving signal (i.e., the PAM signal with alternating polarities with respect to the constant voltage) of the present application.
Examiner’s reply:
Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., (PAM) signal.] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. The underlined portions of apparatus claim 1 (see below) are the only structural limitations in the claim. The final two “wherein” clauses are not structural limitations but rather a recitation of the manner of operating the claimed apparatus. As per MPEP 2114 II, the “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Liang II discloses the claimed structure of claim 1 and is structurally capable of being operated in the claimed manner, so Liang II meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the limitations applicant argues cannot differentiate from Liang II as they are not structural limitations but rather method steps detailing the manner of operating the device in an apparatus claim. This analysis also applies to claims 2-4 which are apparatus claims that do not contain structural limitations and Liang and Liang II disclose the claimed structure required in claims 2-4.
In other words, the whole entire basis of all of applicant’s arguments CANNOT BE PERSUASIVE because the limitations upon which applicant bases the arguments are not structural limitations but rather method steps in an apparatus claim which recite the MANNER OF OPERATING THE CLAIMED DEVICE wherein MPEP 2114 II makes it clear that the “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART” as per MPEP 2114 II. And, applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also Examiner’s reply B and C above.
Applicant argues:
According to the second driving method described in the paragraphs [0116]-[0129] of Liang II, in the first mode (differential-mode movement) shown in FIG. 8B, the first signal DV1 which is a voltage difference between two electrodes of the actuating portion 120a includes a common signal plus a first controlling signal, the second signal DV2 which is a voltage difference between two electrodes of the actuating portion 120b includes the same common signal plus a second controlling signal, the common signal includes the constant bias voltage and/or the input audio signal, and the first controlling signal and the second controlling signal are DC signals or alternating current (AC) signals. Therefore, the first signal DV1 and the second signal DV2 in the first mode are not related to the first signal DV1 and the second signal DV2 in the third mode. Therefore, the relationship between the driving signals in different modes of Liang Il is different from the relationship between the modulation-driving signal and the demodulation-driving signal of the present application.
Examiner’s reply:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., the first signal DV1 and the second signal DV2 in the first mode are not related to the first signal DV1 and the second signal DV2 in the third mode] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). And, applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
See also Examiner’s reply C above and H below.
Applicant argues:
Thus, based on the present application, US Patent No. 11,943,585 and US Application No. 18/624,105, the driving signals of the second driving method of Liang II are totally different from the demodulation signal and the modulation signal, and the driving signals of Liang II should not serve as the demodulation signal and the modulation signal.
Examiner’s reply:
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. The underlined portions of apparatus claim 1 (see below) are the only structural limitations in the claim. The final two “wherein” clauses are not structural limitations but rather a recitation of the manner of operating the claimed apparatus. As per MPEP 2114 II, the “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Liang II discloses the claimed structure of claim 1 and is structurally capable of being operated in the claimed manner, so Liang II meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the limitations applicant argues cannot differentiate from Liang II as they are not structural limitations in an apparatus claim but rather method steps detailing the manner of operating the device in an apparatus claim. This analysis also applies to claims 2-4 which are apparatus claims that do not contain structural limitations and Liang and Liang II disclose the claimed structure required in claims 2-4.
In other words, the whole entire basis of all of applicant’s arguments CANNOT BE PERSUASIVE because the limitations upon which applicant bases the arguments are not structural limitations but rather method steps in an apparatus claim which recite the MANNER OF OPERATING THE CLAIMED DEVICE wherein MPEP 2114 II makes it clear that the “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART” as per MPEP 2114 II. And, applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also Examiner’s reply C above.
Applicant argues:
Furthermore, according to the content "the first electrode receives a first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives a second demodulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a differential-mode movement" and the content "the second electrode and the fourth electrode receive a modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a common-mode movement" recited in claim 1 of the present application, two different type signals (i.e., the demodulation signal and the modulation signal) are respectively received by two electrodes of one actuator.
However, Liang II fails to disclose and teach two different type signals are respectively received by two electrodes of one actuator.
Examiner’s reply:
If the same signal was received at the electrodes of an individual flap, no movement would occur. Applicant’s arguments make no logical sense. Applicant is asked to explain how movement would occur if the same signal was applied to the two electrodes of an individual flap. The examiner also asks for applicant to provide evidence to back up applicant’s arguments.
See also Examiner’s reply C above.
Applicant argues:
Also, Liang II fails to disclose and teach two electrodes of one actuating portion respectively receive the modulation signal and the demodulation signal simultaneously. Thus, Liang II fails to disclose and teach the special actuation (e.g., the common-mode movement and the differential-mode movement are performed by the same flap pair at the same time) of the present application and US Patent No. 11,943,585.
Examiner’s reply:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., simultaneously] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). And, applicant’s arguments merely referring to example embodiments for the meaning of these terms cannot be persuasive as example embodiments may not be read into a claim as per MPEP 2111.01.
Applicant argues:
According to the above, the driving signals and the actuation of Liang II are totally different from the present application. Accordingly, Liang II fails to disclose and teach the content "the first electrode receives a first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives a second demodulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a differential-mode movement" and the content "the second electrode and the fourth electrode receive a modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a common-mode movement" recited in claim 1 of the present application.
Examiner’s reply:
See Examiner’s reply C and H above.
Applicant argues:
Furthermore, Liang II teaches away from these contents recited in claim 1 of the present application.
Examiner’s reply:
This is a mere conclusory statement. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because this assertion lacks support in the record, the assertion is given little weight. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
See also examiner’s reply H and C above.
Applicant argues:
On the other hand, according to the Office Action, Liang (US 2022/0225031) fails to disclose and teach the content "the first electrode receives a first demodulation signal and the third electrode receives a second demodulation signal, such that the
flap pair performs a differential-mode movement" and the content "the second electrode and the fourth electrode receive a modulation signal, such that the flap pair performs a common-mode movement" recited in claim 1 of the present application.
Hence, applicant believes it is hard for those skilled in the art to obtain claim 1 of the present application after referring cited references, and the effect of the structure of claim 1 of the present application should not be known and anticipated by cited
references. As the result, claim 1 of the present application is not obvious over all cited references.
As the result, the structure described in claim 1 is not disclosed by nor obvious over the cited references. Applicant believes claim 1 should be patentable. Reconsideration of claim 1 is politely requested.
Examiner’s reply:
See Examiner’s reply C and H above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights