US Patent 7,931,212 Scope, Claim Architecture, and US Patent Landscape for a Fluid Dispersion Device
US Patent 7,931,212 claims a fluid dispersion device built around a substrate with an inner section containing a central aperture, a dispersion element at the aperture, and an actuator coaxially surrounding the aperture, where the inner section is coupled to the outer section only via a plurality of resilient members (the “resilient coupling” constraint). The claims then narrow that architecture through aperture/actuator geometry, resilient member form and orientation, single-piece versus multi-piece construction, actuator type (piezoelectric), and electrical routing via resilient members.
Because your claim set runs from Claim 1 through Claim 15, the landscape and “scope” analysis below is anchored to that claim grammar: the device is defined structurally, with the resilient coupling constraint functioning as the primary differentiator.
What does Claim 1 cover, and what is the core technical limitation?
Independent claim (Claim 1)
Claim 1 defines a fluid dispersion device with these required elements, all in one device:
- Substrate with:
- Outer section
- Inner section
- Inner section has an aperture
- Dispersion element positioned at the aperture
- Actuator arranged on the substrate and coaxially surrounding the aperture
- Mechanical coupling limitation:
- “an outer edge of said inner section … is coupled to said outer section … only by a plurality of resilient members extending from said outer section to the outer edge of said inner section”
Key scope consequences of Claim 1
- The device is not “generically resilient” or “resiliently mounted.” The claim requires coupling only by resilient members, which excludes designs where the inner section is additionally tied to the outer section by rigid supports, posts, webs, or continuous walls (unless those connections still qualify as “resilient members” under claim interpretation).
- The actuator is not merely near the aperture; it is coaxial and arranged on the substrate, meaning mechanical integration to the substrate is part of the scope.
- The dispersion element is located at the aperture, enabling the claim to cover nozzle-like, membrane-like, orifice-like dispersion features that sit at/over the aperture.
Practical interpretation of the resilient coupling constraint
Claim 1’s “only” limitation typically forces a structural mapping:
- The boundary where the inner section connects to the outer section must be routed through multiple resilient members.
- A single spring, a monolithic continuous web, or a few discrete beams may or may not satisfy “plurality” depending on construction. If the coupling is achieved through two resilient elements it can satisfy “plurality” in most claim constructions; if coupling is achieved through fewer elements or through mixed stiff and resilient elements, it may fall outside scope.
How do dependent claims narrow the geometry and kinematics?
Aperture and actuator shape (Claims 2, 4, 5)
- Claim 2: aperture is central, circular, actuator is annular
- Scope narrows to a rotary-symmetric architecture where the actuator ring surrounds the aperture.
- Claim 4: resilient members are aligned radially about the axis of the central aperture
- This narrows to radially arranged resilient couplers.
- Claim 5: resilient members are aligned at an angle to a line radiating from the center
- This captures angled compliant members, likely creating controlled stiffness vectors and specific motion profiles.
Resilient member form (Claim 3)
- Claim 3: resilient members are serpentine/meandering
- This is a strong structural/shape limitation. It targets compliant elements with a winding path, which can tune compliance, fatigue resistance, or displacement amplification.
Single-piece vs multi-piece construction (Claims 6–9)
- Claim 6: inner section, outer section, and resilient members are formed as a single solid
- Captures monolithic molded/machined structures.
- Claims 7–9: combinations where either:
- inner and resilient as a single solid with an outer section that has attachment sections (Claim 7)
- outer and resilient as a single solid with inner section having attachment sections (Claim 8)
- outer and inner each with attachment sections where resilient members attach (Claim 9)
Scope consequences
These construction-dependent claims materially reduce design-around space:
- If a competitor uses a multi-material stack or hybrid rigid frame plus flexible tether system, it may avoid Claim 6 but still fall within Claims 7–9 if the “single solid” grouping matches and the resilient coupling requirement is met.
How do construction and attachment constraints affect enforcement leverage?
Claims 7–9 also create enforcement handles:
- If the accused product uses a monolithic compliant diaphragm-like substrate, Claim 6 is a direct fit.
- If the resilient couplers are separate components attached into “attachment sections,” the analysis shifts to Claims 7–9 depending on which parts are unitary.
In litigation or licensing, this means claim charts can be segmented by:
- whether the compliant elements are formed as integral geometry versus separate parts; and
- whether “attachment sections” are present and how the resilient members couple to the inner/outer boundaries.
How do Claims 10–15 expand into actuator/electrical/dispersion integration?
Outer section segmentation and support structure (Claim 10)
- “outer partial sections” positioned by a supporting structure “preferably ring-shaped”
- Scope includes architectures where the outer ring is built from segments rather than a continuous annulus.
Actuator type (Claim 11)
- Actuator is piezoelectric
- This materially narrows Claim 1’s actuator generality for products that use non-piezo actuation (electromagnetic, thermal, hydraulic, solenoid).
Electrical signal routing via resilient members (Claims 12–14)
- Claim 12: at least one resilient member is adapted to carry an electrical signal provided for the actuator
- Claim 13: inner section carries electrical signal via at least one resilient member
- Claim 14: outer section carries electrical signal via at least one resilient member
Scope consequences
These claims cover integrated electrical routing through the mechanical compliance elements:
- A design with insulated electrical leads that bypass the resilient members may not satisfy Claims 12–14.
- A design that uses resilient members as conductors (or part of conductive path) increases infringement risk.
Dispersion element as integral part of substrate (Claim 15)
- Dispersion element is an integral part of the substrate
- This narrows to designs where the aperture region includes a formed dispersion feature rather than a separately assembled nozzle insert.
What is the effective claim “scope map” across design variables?
Below is the claim logic grid based on the limiting elements actually recited in Claims 1–15.
| Design variable |
Coverage in US 7,931,212 |
Claim anchors |
| Core mechanical architecture |
Inner aperture region coupled to outer region only by resilient members |
Claim 1 |
| Aperture geometry |
Central, circular (narrow) |
Claim 2 |
| Actuator geometry |
Annular actuator around aperture |
Claim 2 |
| Resilient member shape |
Serpentine/meandering (narrow) |
Claim 3 |
| Resilient member orientation |
Radial (narrow) or angled |
Claims 4–5 |
| Monolithic vs assembled |
Single solid or various integral groupings |
Claims 6–9 |
| Outer ring segmentation |
Outer partial sections positioned by ring-shaped support |
Claim 10 |
| Actuation technology |
Piezoelectric (narrow) |
Claim 11 |
| Electrical path via resilient members |
At least one resilient member carries actuator electrical signal |
Claims 12–14 |
| Dispersion element integration |
Dispersion element is integral to substrate |
Claim 15 |
Primary infringement hinge remains Claim 1’s “only by resilient members” coupling.
What is the US patent landscape relevance for this kind of structure?
With the information provided (claim text only), the landscape analysis can be structured around claim-space clusters that typically map to where competitors file patents:
1) Actuated piezo dispensing arrays with compliant mounts
This cluster targets devices that:
- use piezo actuators,
- drive a fluid element at an aperture,
- rely on compliant structures to control motion.
US 7,931,212 contributes through the specific compliant coupling definition:
- multiple resilient members provide the only mechanical coupling between inner and outer substrate regions.
2) Annular or coaxial piezo stacks surrounding an orifice/aperture
A prominent sub-space is ring-shaped actuation around a central orifice, often used to produce uniform pressure/displacement profiles.
Here, Claim 2 (central circular aperture + annular actuator) defines that narrower sub-space.
3) Conductive compliant elements (electrical routing through flexures)
Claims 12–14 capture an integration approach where the compliant elements carry electrical signals. This is an architectural niche that can differentiate from designs that use separate wires or flex circuits insulated from the compliant mount geometry.
4) Monolithic compliant substrates
Claims 6–9 cover monolithic or semi-monolithic construction with attachment sections and integral groups. Many prior art references exist in microfabricated or molded compliant actuators; enforceability often turns on whether the prior art matches the “single solid” / “attachment sections” structure.
What are the strongest “design-around” levers implied by the claim set?
From a business-risk perspective, the claim set identifies the following high-impact separation points:
- Mechanical coupling rule
- If the inner section is coupled to the outer section through any non-resilient structural path, it can fall outside Claim 1.
- Actuator type
- Non-piezo actuation can avoid Claims 11–14 (but not Claim 1 unless the actuator type appears elsewhere in claim construction).
- Annular/circular specifics
- If aperture is non-circular or not centrally arranged relative to axis, Claim 2 and dependent geometry claims are harder to meet.
- Resilient member geometry
- Avoiding serpentine/meandering shapes can reduce risk for Claim 3 and potentially affect how “resilient members” are characterized.
- Electrical routing
- If resilient members do not carry electrical signal, Claims 12–14 may be avoided.
- Dispersion element integration
- Using a separate dispersion nozzle insert may avoid Claim 15 while still satisfying the remaining device structure.
Key takeaways for scope, enforcement, and competitive positioning
Key Takeaways
- Claim 1 sets the core patentable structure: a substrate with an inner aperture region driven by an actuator coaxial around the aperture, where the inner region is coupled to the outer substrate only by a plurality of resilient members.
- Dependent claims tighten enforceability around geometry and compliance design: central circular aperture, annular actuator, serpentine resilient couplers, and radial or angled alignment.
- Construction and electrical integration are meaningful claim choke points: monolithic versus attachment-based compliant members, piezoelectric actuation, and electrical signal routing through resilient members.
- The landscape relevance clusters into compliant-mounted actuated dispensers, annular coaxial actuation around orifices, and conductive flexure architectures.
FAQs
1) What is the single most important limitation in US 7,931,212?
The “coupled … only by a plurality of resilient members” constraint in Claim 1.
2) Does the patent require an annular actuator?
No. Annular actuator geometry appears in Claim 2 as a dependent limitation, not in Claim 1.
3) Is serpentine resilient member shape required?
Only for designs that must meet Claim 3. Claim 1 does not require serpentine geometry.
4) Can a non-piezo actuator avoid the patent entirely?
Non-piezo may avoid Claims 11–14, but Claim 1 does not explicitly limit the actuator to piezoelectric in the independent claim text you provided.
5) Does electrical wiring through the compliant members matter?
Yes for Claims 12–14. If resilient members do not carry the actuator electrical signal path, those dependent claims may not be met.
References
[1] US Patent 7,931,212 (claims 1–15 as provided in the prompt).
