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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 5 Nov 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 and 21-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 August 2025.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses, specifically in Claim 8.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 8 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, line 1 “the area” should likely read “an area”.
In Claim 8, line 2 “the length” should likely read “a length”.
In Claim 23, line 3 “the fluid outlets” should likely read “the plurality of fluid outlets”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-12, 14-16 and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Butcher et al (US 2016/0208708) in view of Sloan (US 7,458,532) in further view of Moore (US 1,905,733) in further view of Hui et al (US 2016/0120098).
Regarding Claim 1, Butcher et al disclose a fluid manifold (Figure 9c; Abstract). The manifold comprising:
a body (generally at 100 in Figure 9c) defining:
a fluid inlet (102);
a plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 9c; the openings between support structures 106a and 106b); and
a volume (within 100 between 102 and 104; ¶ 38) disposed between and in fluid communication with the fluid inlet (102) and the plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 9c; the openings between support structures 106a and 106b),
wherein the volume (within 100 between 102 and 104; ¶ 38) defines:
a first width, W1, (see Annotated Figure A) as measured at a first location (near 102 shown in Annotated Figure A) near the fluid inlet (102),
a second width, Wo, (see Annotated Figure A) as measured at a second location (near 104 shown in Annotated Figure A) near the plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 9c; the openings between support structures 106a and 106b),
a first thickness, T1, (see Annotated Figure A) as measured at the first location (near 102 shown in Annotated Figure A) perpendicular to W1 (see Annotated Figure A), and
a second thickness, To, (see Annotated Figure A) as measured at the second location (near 104 shown in Annotated Figure A) perpendicular to Wo (see Annotated Figure A), and
wherein Wo > W1 ≥ T1 > To (see Annotated Figure A; ¶ 38),
wherein the plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 9c) are separated by a plurality of walls (the dividers 106a or 106b),
but fails to expressly disclose, wherein a cumulative opening size of the fluid outlets is greater than an opening size of the fluid inlet and wherein at least one outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets has a substantially circular cross-section,
wherein the plurality of fluid outlets each define openings defining diameters greater than a diameter of the corresponding fluid outlet,
wherein at least one wall of the plurality of walls has a primary dimension greater than a radii of each outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets,
wherein the volume defines an un-divided triangular cross section, as viewed from a top view.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Sloan teaches a fluid manifold (generally at 10 of the Figures) with a fluid inlet (14) and a fluid outlet (18) wherein a cumulative opening size of the fluid outlet1 is greater than an opening size of the fluid inlet (Figures 5 and 6; Col 4, lines 42-46 disclose where the opening size of the fluid outlet is 9 in sq (1.5 inches tall times 6 inches long) which is greater than the disclosed opening size of the fluid inlet at 7.06 in sq (for an inlet height of the 3 inch pipe)) wherein the volume (the interior of transitional section 16) defines an un-divided triangular cross section (Figure 6 and Figure 4 where the cross section is triangular in the same way as Applicants with the narrow end of the triangle at the inlet end 14 and the base of the triangle at the outlet end 18 shown in Figure 4), as viewed from a top view (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold of Butcher et al with the dimensions as taught by Sloan for the advantage of slowing the speed of the fluid exiting the manifold, as taught by Sloan (Col 4, lines 14-17).
Additionally, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the relative dimensions of the fluid inlet and cumulative opening size of the fluid outlet as taught by Sloan since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the manifold of Butcher et al, as modified by Sloan, would not operate differently with the claimed housing dimensions since the fluid manifold dimensions of Sloan function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed dimensions. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold of Butcher et al with the undivided volume as taught by Sloan for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (an undivided manifold volume of Sloan with the manifold of Butcher et al) to yield predictable results (to allow free flow of fluid from the inlet to the outlet).
Moore teaches a manifold (generally in Figures 1-2) with a body (10) defining a fluid inlet (from 11; page 1, lines 43-47) and a plurality of fluid outlets (to 12 and 13; page 1, lines 47-50),
wherein at least one outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets (at least fluid outlet to 13) has a substantially circular cross-section (Figures 1-2 together show the outlet to 13 to be circular in cross section); and
wherein the plurality of fluid outlets (to 12 and 13; page 1, lines 47-50) each define openings (see Annotated Figure B) defining diameters greater than a diameter of the corresponding fluid outlet (see Annotated Figure B; where the diameter of the fluid outlet is smaller than the diameter of the opening by the distance of the step/shoulder from the fluid outlet to the opening).
PNG
media_image2.png
252
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets to be substantially circular in cross-section since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The advantage of providing a substantially circular cross-section would be to provide a shape that easily allows for fluid connection to a conventional pipe.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Butcher et al, as modified by Sloan, with the system as taught by Moore for the advantage of providing a larger diameter opening to function to attach a pipe or conduit to the manifold’s plurality of fluid outlets, thereby allowing communication and connection to other part of a system.
Hui et al teach a manifold (Figures 3 and 4 generally) with a plurality of fluid outlets (56) that are separated by a plurality of walls (the portions of face plate 60 that separate the outlets as seen in Figures 3-4), wherein at least one wall of the plurality of walls (see Annotated Figure C) has a primary dimension (see Annotated Figure C) greater than a radii of each outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets (see Annotated Figure C).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the relative dimensions wherein at least one wall of the plurality of walls has a primary dimension greater than a radii of each outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets as taught by Hui et al since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the manifold of Butcher et al, as modified by Sloan and Moore, would not operate differently with the claimed wall dimensions since the fluid manifold dimensions of Hui et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed dimensions. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding Claim 3, Butcher et al disclose where the plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 9c; the openings between support structures 106a and 106b) are disposed along a same plane (Figure 9c; with the same plane being along the width Wo direction shown in Annotated Figure A through the plurality of fluid outlets).
Regarding Claim 4, Butcher et al, as modified by Sloan and Moore teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the plurality of fluid outlets are disposed along at least two planes, and wherein the at least two planes are parallel with respect to one another.
Hui et al teach a manifold (Figures 3 and 4) with a plurality of fluid outlets (56) where the fluid outlets (56) are disposed along at least two planes (an upper plane from left to right as seen in the orientation of Figure 4 and a lower plane from left to right as seen in the orientation of Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the arrangement of the plurality of fluid outlets to be arranged in two planes since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the ports based on user defined criteria such as to provide more fluid outlets or allow the fluid outlets to be contained within an area with a shorter width.
Regarding Claim 5, Butcher et al disclose where internal ends (Annotated Figure B at “fluid outlet”) of the plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 9c; the openings between support structures 106a and 106b) are disposed along a single line extending perpendicular to a central axis of the fluid inlet (the line is along the plane of Wo as seen in Annotated Figure A which extends perpendicular to a central axis of the fluid inlet which as seen in Annotated Figure A would extend into the page at the junction of the T1 and W1 along the centerline of the circular inlet opening).
Regarding Claim 6, Butcher et al disclose where at least one of the plurality of fluid outlets has a central axis parallel with a central axis of the fluid inlet (where the central axis of the fluid inlet runs at least through and above 106b and so at least the two outlets on either side of 106b would have a central axis parallel to the central axis of the inlet; Figure 9c).
Regarding Claim 7, Butcher et al disclose where all of the plurality of fluid outlets have a central axis parallel with a central axis of the fluid inlet (where the central axis of the fluid inlet runs at least through and above 106b and so the outlets at 104 would all have a central axis parallel to the central axis of the inlet by being both on the side of, and below, the central axis of the fluid inlet; Figure 9c).
Regarding Claim 8, Butcher et al disclose where the area of the volume (within 100 between 102 and 104; ¶ 38), as viewed parallel with the plane is constant along the length of the volume (¶ 38 discloses “the cross-sectional area of the circular portion is the same as the cross-sectional area of the elliptical portion”).
Regarding Claim 9, Butcher et al disclose where the volume (within 100 between 102 and 104; ¶ 38) defines a quadrilateral cross section (Figure 9c), as viewed from a side view (where the inlet and outlet planes are the right and the left sides of the quadrilateral respectively).
Regarding Claim 10, Butcher et al disclose where the inlet (102) has a diameter greater than any of the plurality of outlets (the openings between support structures 106a and 106b; Figure 9c).
Regarding Claim 11, Butcher et al disclose where the plurality of outlets (the openings between support structures 106a and 106b) have generally the same shape (generally oblong with width greater than height as seen in Figure 9c).
Regarding Claim 12, Moore teaches a fluid manifold (generally at 10) with a plurality of fluid outlets (to 12 and 13; Figure 1) where each of the plurality of fluid outlets defines an opening adapted to receive an end of a hose (hoses 12 and 13; Page 1, lines 47-50).
Regarding Claim 14, Butcher et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above except where the volume sidewall thickness is greater than the inlet sidewall thickness.
Moore teaches a fluid manifold (generally at 10) where the volume sidewall thickness (along the middle of the manifold in the area where the reference numeral 10 for the manifold points) is greater than the inlet sidewall thickness (Figure 1; the sidewall thickness surrounding the leg 18 upstream of 17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the volume sidewall thickness to be greater than the inlet sidewall thickness since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a greater strength area at the volume or to better insulate the area at the volume.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the volume sidewall thickness to be greater than the inlet sidewall thickness, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 15, Moore teaches where the volume sidewall thickness tapers (along the middle of the manifold in the area where the reference numeral 10 for the manifold points), as measured along a portion of the sidewall between the fluid inlet and the plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Butcher et al disclose where the plurality of fluid outlets (Figure 9c; the openings between support structures 106a and 106b) comprise adjacent fluid outlets (Figure 9c, only separated by 106a or 106b) that are spaced apart from one another by a wall of the body (106a or 106b), but fails to expressly disclose wherein an upstream side of the wall defines a curved profile.
Moore teaches where wherein an upstream side of the wall (the wall surrounding flow path 20 for example) defines a curved profile (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify wherein an upstream side of the wall defines a curved profile since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a smooth flow path from the inlet to the outlet.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having an upstream side of the wall defines a curved profile, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 21, Moore teaches wherein each outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets (13 in Figures 1-2) has a substantially circular cross-section (Figures 1-2 together show the outlet to 13 to be circular in cross section).
Regarding Claim 22, Sloan teaches where the fluid outlet is configured to have a greater cumulative flow than the fluid inlet (Figures 5 and 6; Col 4, lines 42-46 disclose where the opening size of the fluid outlet is 9 in sq which is greater than the disclosed opening size of the fluid inlet at 7.06 in sq and therefore a greater cumulative flow area) and Butcher et al disclose not generating internal pressure within the manifold causing excess fluid to be retained in the manifold (Figure 9C; ¶ 38 discloses the volume of fluid flow remains the same, therefore no fluid is retained).
Regarding Claim 23, Butcher et al disclose wherein the plurality of fluid outlets lie along a straight line perpendicular to the central axis of the fluid outlets (see Annotated Figure A along Wo).
Regarding Claim 24, Butcher et al, as modified by Sloan and Moore teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein at least one outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets comprises an entry portion from the volume to the opening, wherein the entry portion tapers narrower from the volume toward the opening.
Hui et al teach wherein at least one outlet of the plurality of fluid outlets (56) comprises an entry portion (82) from the volume (the interior of 50) to the opening (the opening that forms the outlet 56), wherein the entry portion tapers narrower from the volume toward the opening (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify wherein the entry portion tapers narrower from the volume toward the opening since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a smooth flow path from the inlet to the outlet.
Regarding Claim 25, Butcher et al disclose where a central axis of at least one of the fluid outlets (Figure 9c with the outlets out 104 and separated by 106a or 106b) is generally parallel with respect to another of the fluid outlets (with the outlets on the other side of 106a or 106b).
Regarding Claim 26, Butcher et al disclose where a central axis of at least one of the fluid outlets (Figure 9c with the outlets out 104 and separated by 106a or 106b) is generally parallel with a central axis of the fluid inlet (from 102; Figure 9c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends Claim 1 to recite the limitation “wherein the volume defines an un-divided triangular cross section, as viewed from a top view” and argues that the prior art fails to teach or disclose the amended subject matter. However, as discussed above, Sloan teaches wherein the volume (the interior of transitional section 16) defines an un-divided triangular cross section (Figure 6 and Figure 4 where the cross section is triangular in the same way as Applicants with the narrow end of the triangle at the inlet end 14 and the base of the triangle at the outlet end 18 shown in Figure 4), as viewed from a top view (Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold of Butcher et al with the undivided volume as taught by Sloan for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (an undivided manifold volume of Sloan with the manifold of Butcher et al) to yield predictable results (to allow free flow of fluid from the inlet to the outlet).
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753