Details for Patent: 8,511,581

Summary for Patent: 8,511,581

Title:	Fluid droplet production apparatus and method
Abstract:	A fluid dispersion device comprises a substrate having an outer section and an inner section, said inner section of the substrate having an aperture, a dispersion element positioned at said aperture of said substrate, and an actuator arranged to coaxially surround said aperture of said substrate, wherein the outer edge of said inner section of said substrate is coupled to said outer section of said substrate by a plurality of resilient members.
Inventor(s):	Markus Urich, Samuel Charles William Hyde, Neil Pollock, Andrew Jonathan Sant
Assignee:	PARI Pharma GmbH
Application Number:	US13/042,980
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Device;

United States Patent 8,511,581 (Fluid Dispersion Device): Scope, Claims, and US Patent Landscape

US Patent 8,511,581 is directed to a fluid dispersion device built around a substrate with an inner section and outer section separated by a gap, an aperture in the inner section, a dispersion element positioned at the aperture, and an actuator affixed to the inner section and surrounding the aperture. The key mechanical linkage is a set of plural resilient members that extend across the gap in substantially the same plane, connecting inner and outer sections while resiliently coupling them. The claims emphasize resonant operation, structured piezo actuation, specific resilient geometry (including serpentine/meandering), and material/form-factor constraints (including stainless steel and monolithic or composite solids).

What follows is a claim-by-claim scope map, an operational feature map, and a landscape framework designed to identify where non-infringement positions and design-around pathways most often exist for this claim set.

---

What does claim 1 actually require (core claim scope)?

Claim 1: Device architecture (must-have elements)

Claim 1 requires, in combination:

1. Substrate with:

   • an outer section
   • an inner section
   • the inner and outer sections are separated by a gap
   • the inner section has an aperture

2. Dispersion element for generating a fluid droplet spray

   • the dispersion element is positioned at the aperture
   • it covers the aperture

3. Actuator:

   • affixed to the inner section
   • surrounding the aperture

4. Plurality of resilient members:

   • each resilient member extends across the gap between inner and outer sections
   • each connects inner and outer sections in substantially the same plane
   • each resiliently couples inner section to outer section

Functional result baked into structure: the device produces droplet spray via an aperture-based dispersion element and uses resiliently coupled inner/outer substrate sections to enable a controlled actuation response (and, in dependent claims, resonance).

Claim 1 scope pressure points (where infringement and invalidity typically hinge)

The claim is structurally tight around four junctions:

• Gap + resilient members “across” the gap
  Resilient members must cross from inner to outer across the defined separation. If a design uses a flexure or bridge not spanning the gap, the limitation can be avoided.

• “Substantially the same plane” resilient members
  A design that places compliant elements out of plane (e.g., radial flexures or 3D compliant mechanisms) targets this limitation.

• Actuator affixed and surrounding the aperture
  A design where actuation is applied only to a remote element, or where a different actuation structure does not “surround” the aperture, limits literal coverage.

• Dispersion element positioned at and covering the aperture
  If the dispersion element sits adjacent to the aperture rather than covering it, or if coverage occurs only partially, scope can narrow sharply.

---

Which dependent claims add enforceable limitations (and what they do to coverage)?

Claim 2: Central circular aperture + annular actuator

Adds:

• aperture positioned centrally in inner section
• aperture is circularly shaped
• actuator is annularly shaped

Practical effect: narrows to centrally located, rotationally symmetric architectures.

Claim 3: Piezoelectric actuation

Adds:

• actuator comprises a piezoelectric element

Practical effect: limits to piezo-driven embodiments. Non-piezo actuators (electromagnetic, thermal, electrostatic, solenoid-driven nozzles) can avoid.

Claim 4: Outer and inner sections connected “in a plane” by resilient members

Adds:

• outer and inner sections are connected in a plane by the resilient members

Practical effect: further enforces the planar coupling concept, reinforcing claim 1’s “substantially the same plane.”

Claim 5: Resonant oscillation

Adds:

• resilient members oscillate at or near resonance

Practical effect: introduces a dynamic limitation. Devices that do not exploit resonance or have non-resonant actuation can argue non-infringement.

Claim 6: Node at the end attached to outer section

Adds:

• oscillation such that each resilient member has an oscillation node at the end attached to the outer section

Practical effect: narrows to designs where boundary conditions place a node at the outer attachment. This can be a strong design-around if the compliance geometry yields a non-node boundary condition.

Claim 7: Stainless steel

Adds:

• outer section, inner section, and resilient members are stainless steel

Practical effect: material constraint. Non-stainless variants (titanium, tool steel, nickel alloys, ceramics, composites, coated metals) can avoid literal coverage.

Claim 8: Serpentine/meandering resilient members

Adds:

• resilient members are serpentine/meandering

Practical effect: narrows to specific flexure geometry. Straight beam flexures, circular compliant rings, or leaf springs can avoid.

Claim 9: Radial alignment

Adds:

• resilient members aligned radially with respect to the aperture axis

Practical effect: rotational symmetry with specific alignment.

Claim 10: Angled alignment

Adds:

• resilient members aligned at an angle with respect to a radial line

Practical effect: covers off-radial strut/serpentine orientations.

Claim 11: Monolithic inner/outer/resilients

Adds:

• inner section, outer section, and resilient members are formed as a single solid

Practical effect: eliminates multi-part bonded assembly implementations.

Claim 12: Inner section and resilient members monolithic; outer has attachment sections

Adds:

• inner section + resilient members are single solid
• outer section has attachment sections
• resilient members attached to attachment sections

Practical effect: allows composite construction while preserving internal monolith.

Claim 13: Outer section + resilient members monolithic; inner has attachment sections

Adds:

• outer section + resilient members are single solid
• inner section has attachment sections
• resilient members attached to attachment sections

Practical effect: symmetrical counterpart to claim 12.

Claim 14: Outer attachment sections + inner attachment sections; resilient members attached to both

Adds:

• outer section has outer attachment sections
• inner section has inner attachment sections
• resilient members attached to inner and outer attachment sections

Practical effect: describes a modular attachment scheme.

Claim 15: Outer section made of partial outer sections supported by ring-shaped structure

Adds:

• outer section comprises plurality of outer partial sections
• positioned by a ring-shaped supporting structure

Practical effect: constrains to a specific partitioning and support approach.

Claim 16: Outer section configured for attachment to a housing

Adds:

• outer section configured for attachment to a housing

Practical effect: common feature; often hard to use for non-infringement unless an alternative mounting approach is used.

Claim 17: At least one resilient member carries electrical signal for actuator

Adds:

• resilient member carries electrical signal for actuator

Practical effect: implies at least partial electrical conduction through the flexure path. A design where conductors run separately (wiring harness, printed circuit board, separate electrode leads) can avoid.

Claim 18: Resilient member length relative to outer radius

Adds:

• inner and outer sections and resilient members are annularly shaped
• each resilient member length is at least 10% of a radius of annular outer section

Practical effect: enforces a size/geometry ratio. Short flexures below threshold can avoid.

---

What is the functional “operating principle” implied by the claim set?

The claim set ties together:

• Aperture-based droplet spray (dispersion element at aperture covering it).
• Annular actuator (in claim 2) and piezo (claim 3) surrounding the aperture.
• A compliant mechanical coupling between inner and outer sections via planar resilient members across a gap.
• Resonant oscillation of resilient members (claims 5 and 6), with specific boundary conditions (node at outer attachment).

Even though claim 1 does not require resonance, claims 5 and 6 do. That matters for both:

• Infringement analysis: whether accused devices operate near resonance.
• Validity analysis: whether prior art uses resonant flexures in piezo-driven nozzle/dispenser contexts with comparable boundary conditions.

---

What is the likely enforceability envelope for claim coverage? (Literal vs. dependency stack)

Narrowest “high-confidence” embodiment described by the combined set

A device is most clearly covered if it matches the full stack:

• Central circular aperture in inner section
• Annular piezo actuator surrounding aperture
• Planar array of resilient members spanning the inner-outer gap
• Resilient members oscillate near resonance
• Resilient members have a node at the end attached to the outer section
• Stainless steel substrate and flexures
• Serpentine/meandering resilient members aligned radially (or at defined angled variants)
• Monolithic or attachment-based constructions as specified
• Annular geometry with resilient member length ≥ 10% of outer radius
• At least one resilient member serving as electrical signal path

How much flexibility exists for non-infringement

Because many dependent claims add narrow constraints (piezo, stainless, serpentine, node, monolith), an accused system can reduce risk by changing one or more of:

• actuator type (non-piezo),
• resilient geometry (not serpentine),
• resonant operation (no resonance or different boundary),
• material set (non-stainless),
• electrical routing (no signal through flexure),
• actuator shape (not annular),
• aperture shape/location (not centrally circular),
• resilient construction (not planar or not across the gap).

---

Where does the claim language create testable claim construction anchors?

“Resilient members extending across the gap”

This is a geometric condition. It requires that the resilient members bridge the gap between inner and outer sections.

“Substantially the same plane” + “connected in a plane”

These are orientation conditions. They can be tested by CAD/CT measurement and by the flexure layout plane relative to the substrate.

“Oscillation node at an end attached to the outer section”

This is a measurable dynamic boundary condition. It is testable through modal analysis and vibration testing (finite element modal analysis plus instrumentation).

“Actuator … surrounding the aperture”

This is positional/topological. It requires an annular/encircling arrangement around the aperture region.

“Dispersion element positioned at the aperture” and “covering the aperture”

“Covering” is the hardest-to-escape word if interpreted broadly; non-contact proximity alone can be insufficient if the dispersion element does not cover the aperture.

---

US patent landscape: how to map competitors and prior art risk to this claim set

Core landscape categories

Without relying on unprovided bibliographic details (filing date, assignee, examiner, or cited references), the landscape for this type of claim can be operationalized into three risk buckets that map directly to the limitations:

1. Piezoelectric annular actuated droplet dispensers with aperture-based ejection

   • matches claims 2 and 3

2. Resonant flexure-coupled nozzle heads / compliant ring structures

   • matches claims 5 and 6
   • includes boundary-condition designs that differ from “node at outer attachment”

3. Planar serpentine flexures / monolithic compliance structures with gap-separated inner and outer sections

   • matches claims 1, 4, 8, 11 to 14, 18

What “strongest prior art” looks like

The strongest overlapping prior art tends to include at least:

• piezo-based actuation,
• an aperture-based droplet ejection interface,
• compliant structure spanning an internal cavity or gap,
• resonance exploitation,
• known flexure boundary conditions consistent with nodes at outer supports.

What “weaker prior art” usually looks like

Prior art that may still be relevant but less threatening to literal infringement tends to:

• use non-piezo actuation,
• eject via a different nozzle geometry not based on aperture covering,
• use flexures that are not planar or not spanning the specific gap arrangement,
• do not exploit resonance or do not report modal boundary conditions.

---

Actionable freedom-to-operate screening logic (based on the claim set)

Design-around levers ranked by literal impact

1. Actuator type and form

   • replace piezo with non-piezo
   • use non-annular actuator arrangement

2. Resilient coupling geometry

   • avoid planar “same plane” coupling
   • use flexures not bridging the defined gap between inner and outer sections

3. Resonance and boundary conditions

   • operate without resonance
   • alter support conditions so no “node at end attached to outer section”

4. Material

   • do not use stainless steel for all of outer, inner, resilient members

5. Resilient geometry

   • avoid serpentine/meandering flexures
   • avoid annular compliant member designs with length ≥ 10% radius ratio (claim 18)

6. Electrical routing

   • avoid using flexures as electrical signal carriers

Litigation posture implications

• The dependent claims contain multiple hard constraints that can reduce claim value if an accused product avoids one constraint.
• Claim 1 is broad on actuator and dispersion element details, but still hard-cabined by the combination of gap-separated inner/outer sections plus resilient members that bridge the gap in-plane.

---

Key Takeaways

• Claim 1 defines a rigid mechanical architecture: gap-separated inner/outer substrate sections bridged by planar resilient members, plus an aperture in the inner section, a dispersion element covering the aperture, and an actuator affixed and surrounding the aperture.
• Dependent claims add enforceable narrowing on annular piezo actuation, resonant oscillation, modal node behavior at the outer attachment, stainless steel, serpentine flexures, alignment, and construction method (monolithic vs attachment sections).
• The practical infringement/design-around strategy centers on altering (i) actuator type/form, (ii) compliant topology across the gap, and (iii) dynamic resonance and boundary condition behavior.

---

FAQs

1) Is resonance required for infringement of the independent claim?

No. Claim 1 does not require resonance; resonance limitations appear in claims 5 and 6.

2) Can a non-piezo actuator still infringe?

A non-piezo actuator may still map to claim 1 if it satisfies the structural “actuator surrounding the aperture” requirement. Claim 3 specifically requires piezoelectricity.

3) What is the most decisive limitation for a resonance-based design-around?

Claim 6’s “oscillation node at an end attached to the outer section” is a strong boundary-condition requirement that can be addressed by changing flexure geometry and support constraints.

4) Does using stainless steel matter?

Only for claims 7 (stainless steel for outer, inner, and resilient members). Claim 1 does not impose a material limitation.

5) How can a design avoid claim 8?

By using resilient members that are not serpentine/meandering. Straight flexures, leaf springs, or other compliant forms can avoid the specific serpentine constraint while still potentially satisfying other limitations depending on geometry.

---

References

[1] US Patent 8,511,581 (claims as provided in prompt).

Drugs Protected by US Patent 8,511,581

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate

Foreign Priority and PCT Information for Patent: 8,511,581

Foriegn Application Priority Data
Foreign Country	Foreign Patent Number	Foreign Patent Date
	02016972	Aug 2, 2002

International Family Members for US Patent 8,511,581

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Austria	463304
Germany	60235883
European Patent Office	1386672