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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian et al. US 2021/0324821.
Claims 1 and 5, Tian teaches a manifold (40) comprising: a monolithic manifold body defining: a manifold inlet (59) including a first filter holder (51) configured to receive a first filter (within 50), a second filter holder (53) having an enclosable open end, the second filter holder configured to receive a second filter (within 52) through the enclosable open end, a pump interface (72) having an interface inlet (76) and an interface outlet (78), a manifold outlet (44), an inlet passageway (94) fluidly coupling the manifold inlet to the interface inlet, an intermediary passageway (96) fluidly coupling the interface outlet to the second filter holder and an outlet passageway (98) fluidly coupling the second filter holder to the manifold outlet and a cap (housing of cartridge 52) configured to enclose the enclosable open end (fig. 1-6).
Claim 14, Matsuo teaches a filtration system comprising: a sump (26), a pump (34) fluidly coupled to the sump and a manifold (40) fluidly coupled to the sump and the pump, the manifold including: a monolithic manifold body defining: a manifold inlet (59) including a first filter holder (51) configured to receive a first filter (within 50), a second filter holder (53) having an enclosable open end, the second filter holder configured to receive a second filter (within 52) through the enclosable open end, a pump interface (72) having an interface inlet (76) and an interface outlet (78), a manifold outlet (44), an inlet passageway (94) fluidly coupling the manifold inlet to the interface inlet, an intermediary passageway (96) fluidly coupling the interface outlet to the second filter holder and an outlet passageway (98) fluidly coupling the second filter holder to the manifold outlet and a cap (housing of cartridge 52) configured to enclose the enclosable open end (fig. 1-6).
Claims 11-13, 15 and 20, Tian further teaches the monolithic manifold body further includes a bracket (at 86) capable of restricting movement of an external component (fig. 1-6); the interface inlet and interface outlet are spaced apart along a longitudinal axis of the pump interface and arranged in a common plane (fig. 5); the longitudinal axis is a central longitudinal axis that intersects the center of the interface inlet and interface outlet (fig. 1-6); and the first filter holder faces the sump in that the first filter holder is directly downstream from the sump (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tian et al. US 2021/0324821.
Tian teaches the manifold of claim 1 and the system of claim 14 but does not teach the manifold body being injection molded or what the manifold body is made of. The recitation of the manifold body being injection molded is a recitation of how the manifold body is made and renders the claim a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USDQ 964 (1985). The recitation of “injection molding” would indicate a plastic material is used to make the manifold body. Plastic manifold bodies are very common in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The method of making the manifold body of Tian is deemed a structural equivalent to the process of injection molding. The process of injection molding does not connote a specific structure as identical plastic structures can be cast, 3D printed, injection molded, etc.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. US 2021/0324821.
Claims 6 and 18, Tian teaches the manifold and system of claims 1 and 14, respectively but does not teach the recited orientation of the interface axis and outlet axis. The recitation of the relative orientation of the interface axis and outlet axis is a recitation of a shifting of the position of an interface sealing surface of the pump and an outlet sealing surface of the manifold outlet. Shifting the position of an element is unpatentable if shifting the position of the element would not modify the operation of the device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (1950). There is no teaching in the specification that the particular orientation of the elements is significant in anyway and shifting the position of the various elements would not modify the operation so long as they various elements remain fluidly coupled.
Claims 7-8 and 19 also recite orientations of various elements with respect to one another and are not patentable for the same reasons stated above with respect to claims 6 and 18.
Claim 9 recites splitting the outlet to create two or more separate fluid flow paths. The recitation of a flow splitter is essentially a recitation of a duplication of parts, namely providing additional outlets. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (1960).
Claim 10 recites the cap being configured to be non-removably coupled to the second filter holder. Providing the cap as non-removably coupled to the filter holder is a recitation of making the parts a single piece. [T]he use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice; In re Larson 144 USPQ 23 1952.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 16-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the closest prior art to Tian teaches the manifold and system of claims 1 and 14 but does not teach a manifold cover coupled to the monolithic manifold body, enclosing at least a portion of the intermediary passageway and at least a portion of the outlet passageway nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 and 17 are allowable as depending from claim 2 or 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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 supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779