DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 4/23/2024. No claims are currently amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/19/2024 is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/7/2024 and 4/23/2024. These drawings are not acceptable.
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: sub-manifold 507 (see paragraph [0042]). 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. 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.
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 20 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 20 recites the limitation "the second end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Georg Neumair (EP 2050971 A1; see the machine translation; both provided on the IDS dated 8/19/2024; herein “Neumair”).
Regarding claim 1, the Neumair reference discloses a manifold (see figure 2) comprising:
a first sub-manifold (see “first sub-manifold” in the annotated figure 2 below) defining a first fluid passage (at K);
a second sub-manifold (see “second sub-manifold” in the annotated figure 2 below) defining a second fluid passage (see “second fluid passage” in the annotated figure 2 below); and
a seal-sub (H) occupying an interface between the first and second fluid passage and that seals against the first and second fluid passages to prevent fluid leaks at the interface (it is considered that the seal-sub seals at the “seal”(s) in the annotated figure 2 below);
wherein the first sub-manifold defines an opening (see the “opening” in the annotated figure 2 below) for receiving the seal-sub into the first fluid passage from outside the first sub-manifold that is separate from the interface.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
1089
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the seal-sub comprises first and second cylindrical ends (see “first cylindrical end” and “second cylindrical end” in the annotated figure 2 below) spaced apart and interposed by a medial portion (see “medial portion” in the annotated figure 2 below), the medial portion being recessed to define a flow region in the first passage.
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1089
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the first end of the seal-sub defines a central passage (see “central passage” in the annotated figure 2 above) in fluid communication with the first fluid passage (see “first fluid passage” in the annotated figure 2 above wherein the first fluid passage is in fluid communication with the central passage through the “transverse passage” as shown in the annotated figure 2 above).
In regards to claim 6, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the first end of the seal-sub defines a port (see “transverse passage” in the annotated figure 2 above) providing fluid communication between the central passage and the flow region.
In regards to claim 7, the Neumair reference discloses a plug (11) fitting into the opening in the first manifold for receiving the seal-sub that retains the seal-sub in position at the interface between the first and second fluid passages.
In regards to claim 8, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the interface between the first and second fluid passages is defined at a joining of first and second seal faces of the first and second sub-manifolds, respectively (it is considered that the seal faces 13 and 14 are at the interface of the first and second sub-manifolds as depicted in figure 2).
In regards to claim 9, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the first and second seal faces (13, 14) are planar (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, the Neumair reference discloses a seal-sub (right-hand H in figure 2) having for connecting adjacent first and second hydraulic passages (see “first fluid passage” and “second fluid passage” in the annotated figure 2 below) into first and second seal faces (13, 14) of a manifold, the seal sub comprising:
a first end (see “first end” in the annotated figure 2 below) occupying a portion of both the first and second passages and defining a central passageway (see “central passageway” in the annotated figure 2 below) therein;
a second end (see “second end” in the annotated figure 2 below) spaced apart from the first end and extended into the first hydraulic passage;
a medial portion (see “medial portion” in the annotated figure 2 below) interposing the first end and second end and having a diameter smaller than the first end and smaller than the second end to define a flow space between the first end and the second end inside the first hydraulic passage;
at least one port (see “port” in the annotated figure 2 below) providing fluid communication between the flow space and the central passageway.
PNG
media_image3.png
698
1089
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 17, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the first end and the second end are at least partially cylindrical (the seal-sub is taught to be an annular screw member having threaded end 1 and 2 as depicted in figure 3; see also paragraph [0019] in the machine translation).
In regards to claim 18, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the second end is at least partially cylindrical and tapers between first and second diameters (it is considered that the second end includes a taper from a larger diameter to a smaller diameter as shown in figure 3).
In regards to claim 19, the Neumair reference discloses where the at least one port (see “port” in the annotated figure 2 above) is defined by a plurality of vanes (it is considered that the material of the seal-sub surrounding the “port”(s) defines a plurality of vanes) between the medial portion and the second end.
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) 2 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georg Neumair (EP 2050971 A1; see the machine translation; both provided on the IDS dated 8/19/2024; herein “Neumair”) in view of Steinberg (US Pre-Grant Publication 20060272719).
In regards to claim 2, the Neumair reference does not disclose first and second pairs of indexed openings defined in the first and second sub-manifolds that receive first and second alignment pins with the first and second fluid passages are aligned.
However, the Steinberg reference teaches a modular manifold having at least a first sub-manifold (22) and a second sub-manifold (24) wherein the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold include openings (32 and 34 in the first sub-manifold) that receive first and second alignment pins (36) in order to secure the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold (see at least paragraph [0023] and paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to secure the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold of the Neumair reference together by first and second pairs of indexed openings defined in the first and second sub-manifolds that receive first and second alignment pins with the first and second fluid passages are aligned as taught by the Steinberg reference in order to secure the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold.
Regarding claim 12, the Neumair reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using including first and second sub-manifolds (see “first sub-manifold” and “second sub-manifold” in the annotated figure 2 below) defining first and second fluid passages (see “first fluid passage” and “second fluid passage” in the annotated figure 2 below), comprising:
providing first and second seal faces (13, 14) on the first and second manifolds, the first and second fluid passages terminating at the first and second seal faces, respectively;
defining an exterior opening (see “exterior opening” in the annotated figure 2 below) into the first fluid passage that is accessible from outside the first sub-manifold through a location other than the first seal face;
providing a seal-sub (H) having an elongate body with first and second ends (see “first end” and “second end” in the annotated figure 2 below) spaced apart by a recessed medial portion (see “medial portion” in the annotated figure 2 below), the first end defining a central passage (see “central passage” in the annotated figure 2 below) and a port (see “port” in the annotated figure 2 below) from the central passage to an outside of the medial portion;
inserting the seal-sub into the exterior opening and into a position where the first end passes through the first and second seal faces; and
fastening the first and second seal faces into a fixed position with respect to one another.
PNG
media_image4.png
698
1082
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Neumair reference does not disclose placing alignment openings passing through the first sub-manifold and into the second manifold when the first and second fluid passages are aligned; and placing alignment pins into the alignment openings.
However, the Steinberg reference teaches a modular manifold having at least a first sub-manifold (22) and a second sub-manifold (24) wherein the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold include openings (32 and 34 in the first sub-manifold) that receive first and second alignment pins (36) in order to secure the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold (see at least paragraph [0023] and paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to secure the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold of the Neumair reference together by first and second pairs of indexed openings defined in the first and second sub-manifolds that receive first and second alignment pins with the first and second fluid passages are aligned as taught by the Steinberg reference in order to secure the first sub-manifold and the second sub-manifold.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of the Neumair reference and the Steinberg reference discloses retaining the seal-sub in the position where the first end passes through the first and second seal faces by inserting a plug (Neumair: 11) into the exterior opening.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of the Neumair reference and the Steinberg reference discloses retaining the seal-sub in the position where the first end passes through the first and second seal faces by providing a shoulder (Neumair: it is considered that the left-hand seal-sub H provides a shoulder for receiving the first end of the right-hand seal-hub H) in the second passage.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of the Neumair reference and the Steinberg reference discloses retaining the seal-sub in the position where the first end passes through the first and second seal faces by providing cooperating tapered regions (Neumair: at the right-hand 16 in figure 2) in the first fluid passage and the first end of the seal-sub.
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georg Neumair (EP 2050971 A1; see the machine translation; both provided on the IDS dated 8/19/2024; herein “Neumair”) in view of Jauhola et al. (WO 1994016252 A1; provided on the IDS dated 8/19/2024).
Claim(s) 20 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 3, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the sub-seal has a first end (see “first end” in the annotated figure 2 below) with at least one seal (17) contacting the second fluid passage.
PNG
media_image5.png
698
1037
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Neumair reference does not disclose wherein the first end of the seal-sub has at least one seal contacting the first fluid passage.
However, the Jauhola et al. reference teaches a hollow screw that includes grooves (8) receiving O-ring seals (7) to seal against the passages surrounding the screw.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a seal to the sub-seal of the Neumair reference between the first end and the first fluid passage as taught by the Jauhola et al. reference in order to reduce potential paths for leakage.
In regards to claim 20, the Neumair reference discloses wherein the sub-seal has a second end (see “second end” in the annotated figure 2 below) with at least one seal (17) contacting the second fluid passage.
PNG
media_image6.png
698
1037
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Neumair reference does not disclose wherein the second end of the seal-sub has at least one seal contacting the first fluid passage.
However, the Jauhola et al. reference teaches a hollow screw that includes grooves (8) receiving O-ring seals (7) to seal against the passages surrounding the screw.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a seal to the sub-seal of the Neumair reference between the second end and the first fluid passage as taught by the Jauhola et al. reference in order to reduce potential paths for leakage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are 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:
In regards to claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose “a leak indicating drain channel in the first seal face leading from the interface between the first and second fluid passages to a location beyond the first and second seal faces” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “a leak indicating drain channel in the second seal face leading from the interface between the first and second fluid passages to a location beyond the first and second seal faces” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meloche (US 5893394), Cotter (US 5020570), Albrecht (US 4934411), Weirich et al. (US 4718458), and Mertes et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2006/0214475) disclose various manifold assemblies having a first sub-manifold and a second sub-manifold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753