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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4 April 2022 and 15 August 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 12 as identified in ¶ 34.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the releasable locking means from Claim 30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 26, “tubular segments (7, 7’, 7’’, 7’’’) and (9, 9’, 9’’, 9’’’)” should likely read “tubes (7, 7’, 7’’, 7’’’) and ducts (9, 9’, 9’’, 9’’’)”.
In ¶ 40, lines 2 and 5 “the valve body (2)” should likely read “the first body (2)”.
In ¶ 40, line 6 “the second body (2)” should likely read “the second body (3)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 23-24 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 20, lines 3 and 10 “said first body or housing” should likely read “said at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 20, line 5 “each link” should likely read “each link of the multiple fluidic links”.
In Claim 20, line 6 “the first body or housing” should likely read “the at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 20, line 6 “the second body or housing” should likely read “the at least one second body or housing”.
In Claim 20, line 8 “articulated” should likely read “articulable”.
In Claim 20, line 10, “said first body or housing” should likely read “said at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 20, line 18 “these first and second bodies or housings” should likely read “the at least one first and second bodies or housings”.
In Claim 20, line 23 “the first body” should likely read “the at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 20, line 23 “the second body” should likely read “the at least one second body or housing”.
In Claim 23, line 2 “the same orientation” should likely read “a same orientation”.
In Claim 24, line 2 “the first body or housing” should likely read “the at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 34, line 3 “said first body or housing” should likely read “said at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 34, line 4 “at least one second body or housing” should likely read “said at least one second body or housing”.
In Claim 34, line 5 “each link” should likely read “each link of the multiple fluidic links”.
In Claim 34, line 6 “the first body or housing” should likely read “the at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 34, line 6 “the second body or housing” should likely read “the at least one second body or housing”.
In Claim 34, line 12 “the first body or housing” should likely read “the at least one first body or housing”.
In Claim 34, line 19 “articulated” should likely read “articulable”.
In Claim 34, line 23 “said first body or housing” should likely read “said at least one first body or housing”.
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.
Claims 20-35 are 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.
The examiner notes that every attempt has been made to list each and every clarity issue below, but the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware of while addressing the following concerns.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "an arrangement of multiple fluidic links between, on one hand, said first body or housing provided with at least two mutually distinct openings and, on the other hand, at least one second body or housing also comprising mutually distinct openings" in lines 3-5. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the terms/limitations “on one hand” and “on the other hand” are intended to claim or convey. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted structurally such that the multiple fluid links link the first body to the second body.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “at least one second body or housing” in line 4. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if there is a second at least one second body or housing (since it follows the unclear “on the other hand” as discussed above). For purposes of examination “at least one second body or housing” from line 4 will be interpreted as being the same as line 2 of Claim 20.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an opening of the first body or housing” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because since the first body or housing is already provided with at least two mutually distinct openings in line 3, it is unclear if “an opening of the first body or housing” is one of the previously recited at least two mutually distinct openings or a different opening. For purposes of examination “an opening of the first body or housing” will be interpreted as an opening of the at least two mutually distinct openings.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an opening of the second body or housing” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because since the second body or housing is already provided with mutually distinct openings in line 4, it is unclear if “an opening of the second body or housing” is one of the previously recited mutually distinct openings or a different opening. For purposes of examination “an opening of the second body or housing” will be interpreted as an opening of the mutually distinct openings.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “each link establishing a leak-tight fluidic connection between an opening of the first body or housing and an opening of the second body or housing, or of one of the second bodies or housings” in lines 5-7. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear both where the fluid connections are formed, as well as what one of the second bodies or housings is. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as each link establishing a leak-tight fluidic connection between an opening of the at least two mutually distinct openings of the at least one first body or housing and either an opening of the mutually distinct openings of the at least one second body or housing, or of an another body or housing of the at least one second body or housing.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein said fluid module is in the form of a pre-assembled functional and structural unit that includes, on one hand, said first body or housing whose distinct openings are each provided with a corresponding rigid female tube that is straight, curved or angled and, on the other hand, suitably shaped rigid ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube- duct pairs” in lines 9-13. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the terms/limitations “on one hand” and “on the other hand” are intended to claim or convey. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted structurally such that ducts and tubes are formed into tube-duct pairs.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “distinct openings” in line 10. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these “distinct openings” are the same as the “at least two mutually distinct openings” from Claim 20, line 4 or different distinct openings. For purposes of examination they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “suitably shaped rigid ducts” in line 12. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what feature, structure or characteristics would render the shape suitable vs unsuitable. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a leak-tight fluidic link that is provided with a limited capability at least of relative rotational and angular, and possibly also translational displacement” in line 16. The phrase "possibly also" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “tubular elements’ in line 19. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are the same tubular elements from Claim 20 line 14 or other tubular elements. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a leak-tight fluidic link provided with a limited capability of at least relative rotational and angular, and possibly also translational displacement” in line 20. The phrase "possibly also" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “at least at the relevant tube-duct nesting, and possibly also at the relevant duct-fitting nesting” in line 22. The phrase "possibly also" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitations “at the relevant tube-duct nesting” and “at the relevant duct-fitting nesting” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the directional control type” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “at least two ports, preferably having at least three or four ports” in line 24. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a directional control plate, preferably of the type including rigidly-interconnected ducts” in line 25. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “at one of its ends” in line 27. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a respective fitting”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what fitting is being referred to. Is it a new fitting? A rigid male fitting?
Claim 21 recites the limitation “at least three, preferably at least four, distinct fluidic links” in line 2. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 22 recites the limitation “each leak-tight fluidic link has a limited capability of articulation at least at its respective tube-duct nesting, and possibly also at its respective duct-fitting nesting” in line 2. The phrase "possibly also" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the level of the respective openings in question” in line 2. This limitation is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the level of the respective openings” limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear which openings are the respective openings in question. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 25, the phrase "and preferably each" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the nesting in question”. It is unclear what nesting is being referred to.
Regarding Claim 26, the phrase "and preferably each" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the nesting in question”. It is unclear what nesting is being referred to.
Regarding Claim 27, the phrase "and preferably each" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the nesting in question”. It is unclear what nesting is being referred to.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 28, the phrase "and preferably also" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the nesting in question”. It is unclear what nesting is being referred to.
Regarding claim 29, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 29 recites the limitation “at this nesting” in line 2. It is unclear which nesting is being referred to.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "said connection" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the female end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “a male fitting”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this a new other male fitting or one of the rigid male fittings from Claim 20.
Regarding claim 31, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the female ends" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "an arrangement of multiple fluidic links between, on one hand, said first body or housing provided with at least two mutually distinct openings and, on the other hand, at least one second body or housing also comprising mutually distinct openings" in lines 3-5. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the terms/limitations “on one hand” and “on the other hand” are intended to claim or convey. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted structurally such that the multiple fluid links link the first body to the second body.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “an opening of the first body or housing” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because since the first body or housing is already provided with at least two mutually distinct openings in line 3, it is unclear if “an opening of the first body or housing” is one of the previously recited at least two mutually distinct openings or a different opening. For purposes of examination “an opening of the first body or housing” will be interpreted as an opening of the at least two mutually distinct openings.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “an opening of the second body or housing” in line 6. This limitation is unclear because since the second body or housing is already provided with mutually distinct openings in line 5, it is unclear if “an opening of the second body or housing” is one of the previously recited mutually distinct openings or a different opening. For purposes of examination “an opening of the second body or housing” will be interpreted as an opening of the mutually distinct openings.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “each link establishing a leak-tight fluidic connection between an opening of the first body or housing and an opening of the second body or housing, or of one of the second bodies or housings” in lines 5-7. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear both where the fluid connections are formed, as well as what one of the second bodies or housings is. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as each link establishing a leak-tight fluidic connection between an opening of the at least two mutually distinct openings of the at least one first body or housing and either an opening of the mutually distinct openings of the at least one second body or housing, or of an another body or housing of the at least one second body or housing.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “providing a first body or housing” in line 9. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is different first body or housing, or the same first body or housing from at least line 1 of Claim 34. For purposes of examination they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “each opening” in line 9. It is unclear which opening is being referred to: the at least two distinct openings from line 4 or an opening from line 6. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “at least one second body or housing” in line 10. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is different second body or housing, or the same second body or housing from at least line 2 or 4 of Claim 34. For purposes of examination they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “each opening” in line 11. It is unclear which opening is being referred to: the distinct openings from line 5 or an opening from line 6. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “suitably shape” in line 12. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what feature, structure or characteristics would render the shape suitable vs unsuitable. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “configured to be nested, on one hand, in respective female tubes of the first body or housing and, on the other hand, on respective male fittings of the second body(-ies) or housing(s)” in lines 9-13. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the terms/limitations “on one hand” and “on the other hand” are intended to claim or convey.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “respective female tubes” in line 12. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are different female tubes or the same tubes as the corresponding rigid female tube. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “respective male fittings” in line 13. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are different male fittings or the same fittings as the corresponding rigid male fitting. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 34 recites the limitation " the second body(-ies) or housing(s)" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “at least at the relevant tube-duct nesting, and possibly also at the relevant duct-fitting nesting” in line 22. The phrase "possibly also" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 34 recites the limitations “at the relevant tube-duct nesting” and “at the relevant duct-fitting nesting” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “fluidic links” in line 19. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are different fluidic links or related to the “leak-right fluid link” from line 16 or “an arrangement of multiple fluidic links” from line 3.
Claim 34 recites the limitation " the various mutually pre-nested tube-duct pairs of tubular elements" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the female tubes” in line 23. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are directed to the corresponding rigid female tube from line 9 or respective female tubes from line 12.
Claim 34 recites the limitation " the rigid ducts or diabolos" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation " the respectively corresponding tubes" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “this module”. It is unclear what module this module is.
Claim 34 recites the limitation " the central axes" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation " the rigid straight male fittings" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 34 recites the limitation “multiple nestlings of the rigid ducts or diablos" in line 26. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are different nestings than the nested assemblies, the nested tubular elements the tube duct nestings the duct fitting nestings or the pre-nested pairs of elements or one of these nestings. Therefore this limitation is unclear.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the pre-installed module” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base 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.
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) 20-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al (US 20050109293) in view of McHugh (US 5409066).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsuda et al disclose a fluid module (Figure 11 generally at 73, 46 and the associated pipes/ducts) intended to1 form part of a system for circulating fluid between at least one first body or housing (from 73) and at least one second body or housing (to the engine as seen in Figure 11). The system comprising:
an arrangement of multiple fluidic links (at least 111, 74 and 72) between, on one hand, said first body or housing (thermostat 73 as seen in Figure 11) provided with at least two mutually distinct openings (with at least 5 openings shown in Figure 11) and, on the other hand, at least one second body or housing (the engine generally as seen in Figure 11) also comprising mutually distinct openings (at least at 46 but many openings shown in Figure 11), each link establishing a leak-tight fluidic connection between an opening of the first body or housing and an opening of the second body or housing (Figure 11), or of one of the second bodies or housings (Figure 11), and wherein said fluid module is in the form of a pre-assembled functional and structural unit (shown assembled as thermostat 73 in Figure 11) that includes, on one hand, said first body or housing (Figure 11) whose distinct openings are each provided with a corresponding tube (on 73 as a male coupling that connects to at least 72, 74 and 111) that is straight, curved or angled (Figure 11 show generally straight tubes) and, on and the other hand, suitably shaped ducts (111, 72 and 74), that are forming tube-duct pairs (at the connection of 111, 72 and 74 to 73), wherein said tube-duct pairs of mutually nested tubular elements (at the connection of 111, 72 and 74 to 73) are configured to constitute, in respective cooperation by nesting with fittings fitted to the openings of said at least one second body or housing (to at least 46 in Figure 11),
a leak-tight fluidic link that is provided with a limited capability at least of relative rotational and angular, and possibly also translational displacement, between these first and second bodies or housings (where the relative rotational and angular displacement present in the attachment and detachment of the ducts 111, 74 or 72 to the first body 73 and/or the second body of the engine as seen in Figure 11), wherein each nested tube-duct-fitting assembly, constitutes a leak-tight fluidic link provided with a limited capability of at least relative rotational and angular, and possibly also translational displacement, at least at the relevant tube-duct nesting (where the relative rotational and angular displacement present in the attachment and detachment of the ducts 111, 74 or 72 to the first body 73 and/or the second body of the engine as seen in Figure 11), and possibly also at the relevant duct-fitting nesting (where the relative rotational and angular displacement present in the attachment and detachment of the ducts 111, 74 or 72 to the first body 73 and/or the second body of the engine as seen in Figure 11), wherein the first body is in the form of a valve body of the directional control type having at least two ports (the thermostat 73 shown in Figure 11 which controls the fluid through to 74), preferably having at least three or four ports (at least 5 ports shown in Figure 11), and wherein the second body is in the form of a directional control plate (at least at 62L and 62R), preferably of the type including rigidly-interconnected ducts (Figure 11 within 46),
but fails to expressly disclose where each of the fluidic links being rigid but articulated where said first body or housing whose distinct openings are each provided a corresponding rigid female tube that is straight, curved or angled and, on the other hand, suitably shaped rigid ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube- duct pairs, suitably shaped ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube- duct pairs, wherein said tube-duct pairs of mutually nested rigid tubular elements are configured to constitute, in respective cooperation by nesting with rigid male fittings fitted to the openings of said at least one second body or housing, wherein each nested tube-duct-fitting assembly, including tubular elements made of rigid plastic and nested in one another, where the rigidly-interconnected ducts of the directional control plate, these being advantageously located in a single plane and each terminating at one of its ends in a respective fitting.
McHugh teaches a leak tight fluidic link (Col 3, lines 24-27) with the fluidic links being rigid (as formed of plastic as taught in Col 9, lines 51-59) but articulated (Figure 3) where said first body or housing (From 27 in Figure 1) whose distinct openings are each provided a corresponding rigid female tube that is straight, curved or angled (see Annotated Figure A) and, on the other hand, suitably shaped rigid ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube-duct pairs (shown in plurality in Matsuda et al), suitably shaped ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube-duct pairs (shown in plurality in Matsuda et al with a duct shown in Annotated Figure A), wherein said tube-duct pairs of mutually nested rigid tubular elements are configured to constitute, in respective cooperation by nesting with rigid male fittings fitted to the openings of said at least one second body or housing (see Annotated Figure A).
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 Matsuda et al with the system as taught by McHugh for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a positionable, articulatable duct of McHugh with the fluid bodies of Matsuda et al) to yield predictable results (to provide a leak free fluidic connection between two bodies).
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 location of the ducts to be nested in one another, where the rigidly-interconnected ducts of the directional control plate, these being advantageously located in a single plane and each terminating at one of its ends in a respective fitting 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 ducts based on user defined criteria such as the convenient location of the fittings of the second body.
PNG
media_image1.png
1024
1049
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Regarding Claim 21, Matsuda et al disclose where the arrangement of multiple fluidic links comprises at least three, preferably at least four, distinct fluidic links (at least 111, 74 and 72 shown in Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 22, McHugh teaches where each leak-tight fluidic link has a limited capability of articulation at least at its respective tube-duct nesting, and possibly also at its respective duct-fitting nesting (Figure 1 as the fitting or tube are attached to the duct).
Regarding Claim 23, Matsuda et al, as modified by McHugh teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the rigid male fittings of the second body(-ies) or housing(s) are all straight and have the same orientation, their central axes being mutually parallel.
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 location of the male fittings to be all straight and have the same orientation, their central axes being mutually parallel 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 ducts based on user defined criteria such as the convenient location of the fittings of the second body.
Regarding Claim 24, Matsuda et al as modified by McHugh teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the rigid female tubes are tubular connectors attached at the level of the respective openings in question of the first body or housing, being rigidly secured for example by welding.
McHugh teaches female tubes (see Annotated Figure A) being attached by welding (Col 5, lines 6-18).
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 Matsuda et al with the system as taught by McHugh for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a positionable, articulatable duct secured by welding of McHugh with the fluid bodies of Matsuda et al) to yield predictable results (to provide a leak free fluidic connection between two bodies).
Regarding Claim 25, McHugh teaches where at least one, and preferably each, tube -duct nesting (see Annotated Figure A) is configured to allow limited swiveling, leak-tightness being retained at the nesting in question (where seal 25 retains fluid tightness despite limited swiveling or other movement).
Regarding Claim 26, McHugh teaches where at least one, and preferably each, tube-duct nesting (see Annotated Figure A) is configured to also allow limited relative axial displacement, leak-tightness being retained at the nesting in question (where seal 25 retains fluid tightness despite limited axial displacement or other movement).
Regarding Claim 27, McHugh teaches where at least one, and preferably each, duct-fitting nesting (see Annotated Figure A) allows at least limited axial displacement, leak-tightness being retained at the nesting in question (where seal 15 retains fluid tightness despite limited axial displacement or other movement).
Regarding Claim 28, McHugh teaches a compression seal (15 or 25 of Figure 1), for example an O-ring or a lip seal (or ring 15 or 25), made of an elastomer material (the crosshatching present in Figure 1 indicates an elastomeric material, see MPEP 608.02(IX)), is present at each tube-duct nesting (see Annotated Figure A), and preferably also at each duct-fitting nesting (see Annotated Figure A), so as to provide axial and/or radial leak-tightness depending on the nesting in question (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 29, Matsuda et al as modified by McHugh teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where each duct-fitting nesting is locked by welding, in particular friction welding or vibration welding, the leak-tightness at this nesting being obtained either directly by said connection by welding, or by interposition of a compression seal.
McHugh teaches female tubes (see Annotated Figure A) being attached by welding (Col 5, lines 6-18) the leak-tightness at this nesting being obtained either directly by said connection by welding (Col 5, lines 6-18). The limitation “in particular friction welding or vibration welding” is not being considered in light of the 112(b) rejection above as unclear if this limitation is intended to be part of the Claim.
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 Matsuda et al with the system as taught by McHugh for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a positionable, articulatable duct secured by welding of McHugh with the fluid bodies of Matsuda et al) to yield predictable results (to provide a leak free fluidic connection between two bodies).
Regarding Claim 30, McHugh teaches where each duct-fitting nesting, and advantageously each tube-duct nesting, comprises a releasable locking means (set screws 13 and 23; Col 10, lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 31, McHugh teaches where the female end of each duct (the top portion of the duct at 11 as seen in Annotated Figure A), joined by nesting to a male fitting (see Annotated Figure A) comprises at least one gripping region (14), for example in the form of a cylindrical skirt portion, and at least one bearing region (11), for example in the form of at least one shoulder.
Regarding Claim 32, Matsuda et al disclose where the first body or housing constitutes, with the various tube-duct pairs of mutually nested tubular elements that are associated therewith, a preassembled unit, of the pre-assembled functional and structural module type (Figure 11 of valve body 73).
Regarding Claim 33, McHugh teaches where the female ends of the ducts (see Annotated Figure A at the top end of the duct), that are intended to be joined by nesting to the male fittings (see Annotated Figure A), are arranged relative to one another and positioned with respect to the first body or housing so as to match, with manufacturing tolerances and with limited possibility of adjustment, the mutual arrangement of the male fittings respectively corresponding to the second body or housing and their positions with respect to the latter (see Annotated Figure A with the plurality of fittings, ducts and tubes disclosed by Matsuda et al).
Regarding Claim 34, Matsuda et al disclose a method for creating a system for circulating fluid between at least one first body or housing and at least one second body or housing (Figure 11 from 73 to the engine). This system having an arrangement of multiple fluidic links (at least 111, 74 and 72) between, on one hand, said first body or housing (thermostat 73 as seen in Figure 11) provided with at least two distinct openings (with at least 5 openings shown in Figure 11) and, on the other hand, at least one second body or housing (the engine generally as seen in Figure 11) comprising distinct openings (at least at 46 but many openings shown in Figure 11), each link establishing a leak-tight fluidic connection between an opening of the first body or housing and an opening of the second body or housing (Figure 11), or of one of the second bodies or housings, said method comprising the steps of:
providing a first body or housing of which each opening is provided with a corresponding tube, which may be straight, curved or angled (on 73 as a male coupling that connects to at least 72, 74 and 111), at least one second body or housing of which each opening is provided with a corresponding rigid fitting (to at least the connections at 46 in Figure 11), and ducts of suitable shape and configured to be nested, on one hand, in respective tubes of the first body or housing and, on the other hand, on respective fittings of the second body(-ies) or housing(s) (Figure 11 at 111, 72 and 74), and creating nested tube-duct-fitting assemblies (Figure 11), each constituting a leak-tight fluidic link and each provided with a limited capability of at least relative rotational/translational/angular displacement (where the relative rotational and angular displacement present in the attachment and detachment of the ducts 111, 74 or 72 to the first body 73 and/or the second body of the engine as seen in Figure 11), at least at the relevant tube-duct nesting, and possibly also at the relevant duct-fitting nesting, so as to obtain fluidic links that are rigid but articulated (where the relative rotational and angular displacement present in the attachment and detachment of the ducts 111, 74 or 72 to the first body 73 and/or the second body of the engine as seen in Figure 11), wherein said method includes, in a separate and preliminary operating phase, in producing a functional and structural module (73), that is pre-installed either by assembling the first body or housing with the various mutually pre-nested tube-duct pairs of tubular elements that are associated therewith, or by assembling the tubes with said first body or housing (Figure 11 with the tubes attached to the housing), then assembling by nesting the ducts or diabolos with the respectively corresponding tubes (11, 74 and 72), and then mechanically and fluidically joining this module (Figure 11), to said at least one second body or housing so as to form the fluid circulation system (Figure 11),
but fails to expressly disclose the module of Claim 20, where each of the fluidic links being rigid but articulated where said first body or housing whose distinct openings are each provided a corresponding rigid female tube that is straight, curved or angled and, on the other hand, suitably shaped rigid ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube- duct pairs, suitably shaped ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube- duct pairs, wherein said tube-duct pairs of mutually nested rigid tubular elements are configured to constitute, in respective cooperation by nesting with rigid male fittings fitted to the openings of said at least one second body or housing, wherein each nested tube-duct-fitting assembly, including tubular elements made of rigid plastic and nested in one another, where the rigidly-interconnected ducts of the directional control plate, by installing in a direction parallel to the central axes of the rigid straight male fittings and multiple nestings of the rigid ducts or diabolos on these fittings.
McHugh teaches a leak tight fluidic link (Col 3, lines 24-27) with the fluidic links being rigid (as formed of plastic as taught in Col 9, lines 51-59) but articulated (Figure 3) where said first body or housing (From 27 in Figure 1) whose distinct openings are each provided a corresponding rigid female tube that is straight, curved or angled (see Annotated Figure A) and, on the other hand, suitably shaped rigid ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube-duct pairs (shown in plurality in Matsuda et al), suitably shaped ducts that are respectively nested in said various female tubes forming tube-duct pairs (shown in plurality in Matsuda et al with a duct shown in Annotated Figure A), wherein said tube-duct pairs of mutually nested rigid tubular elements are configured to constitute, in respective cooperation by nesting with rigid male fittings fitted to the openings of said at least one second body or housing (see Annotated Figure A).
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 Matsuda et al with the system as taught by McHugh for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a positionable, articulatable duct of McHugh with the fluid bodies of Matsuda et al) to yield predictable results (to provide a leak free fluidic connection between two bodies).
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 location of the ducts to be in a direction parallel to the central axes of the rigid straight male fittings and multiple nestings of the rigid ducts or diabolos on these fittings 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 ducts based on user defined criteria such as the convenient location of the fittings of the second body.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al (US 20050109293) in view of McHugh (US 5409066) in further view of Maruyama et al (US 20040184736).
Regarding Claim 35, Matsuda et al, as modified by McHugh, disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the joining of the pre-installed module to said at least one second body or housing is carried out at a robot-equipped station, either fully automatically by an autonomous robot, or semi-automatically using a cobot or assistance robot.
Maruyama teaches utilizing an automated process to manufacture a coupler in order to efficiently and accurately to make a coupler. Para. 16
It would have been obvious before the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the manner in which the module including the coupler of Matsuda et al, as modified by McHugh is manufactured with an automated process as taught by Maruyama in order to efficiently and accurately manufacture the system.
Conclusion
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
1 It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).