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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 9/29/2025 has been received and considered.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buestgens et al. (U.S. 2011/0168929).
Buestgens discloses a piezoelectric valve (such as the embodiment of fig. 6) comprising: a housing (15) provided with an inflow hole (23, where the term “inflow” is an intended direction of the fluid and not seen to patentably distinguish over any type of aperture) and an outflow hole (24, where the term “outflow” is an intended direction of the fluid and not seen to patentably distinguish over any type of aperture) for air; and a valve element (2) disposed in the housing and configured to open and close the inflow hole (para. 57), wherein the valve element is configured by a piezoelectric unit including a plate-shaped piezoelectric element (piezo layer 3, see para. 57) and a diaphragm (4) on which the piezoelectric element is stacked, and the inflow hole does not overlap the piezoelectric element but overlaps only the diaphragm when viewed from a stacking direction of the piezoelectric element in the piezoelectric unit (fig. 6, notice the piezo element in solid black being spaced away from the opening at 23).
Regarding claim 2, Buestgens further discloses wherein an end portion of the diaphragm on the inflow hole side is a free end (the left end), and an end portion of the diaphragm on a side opposite to the inflow hole is a fixed end (at 9 and 6-8, which holds the valve element in place, see fig. 6 and para. 57).
Regarding claim 3, Buestgens further discloses wherein the inflow hole is opened and closed by the free end of the diaphragm (by movement at the left end, see para. 57).
Regarding claim 4, Buestgens further discloses wherein an entirety of the inflow hole overlaps the diaphragm when viewed from the stacking direction of the piezoelectric element in the piezoelectric unit (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Buestgens further discloses wherein a biasing portion (12) that biases the diaphragm toward the inflow hole is disposed at a position facing the inflow hole with the diaphragm interposed therebetween (fig. 6, para. 57).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buestgens in view of Bouchard et al. (U.S. 6,164,621).
Buestgens discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose an elastic member disposed between the diaphragm and inflow hole.
Bouchard teaches it was known in the art to have a similar piezoelectric valve with an elastic member pad at the end of a cantilevered piezoelectric actuator that contacts the valve seat of a fluid port (seat pad 117 that contacts the seat 115 of opening 113, see fig. 1b and col. 6, ll. 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buestgens by having an elastic member pad at the end of the piezoelectric actuator that contacts the valve seat associated with the port (and thus disposed between the diaphragm and inflow hole) as taught by Bouchard in order to form a better fluid tight seal with the valve seat of the hole (see col. 6, ll. 20-25 of Bouchard).
Regarding claim 7, Buestgens as modified further discloses wherein the elastic member is fixed to the diaphragm (as taught by Bouchard, now fixed to the diaphragm in Buestgens so that it is able to contact the valve seat of the hole, see col. 7, ll. 1-5 of Bouchard describing the pad being adhesively attached).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. 11,398,594) discloses a stepped piezoelectric actuator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
