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
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (U.S. Patent 4,726,399) in view of Taskar (U.S. Publication 2009/0095354).
In regards to claim 1, Miller discloses a manifold unit (80) comprising a body that defines: a first inlet aperture (FIA) having a first inlet axis (1IA); an inlet channel (85) that extends from the first inlet aperture (FIA) to the second inlet aperture (SIA), a second inlet aperture (SIA) having a second inlet axis (2IA) substantially coincident with the first inlet axis (1IA); a first outlet aperture (FOA) having a first outlet axis (1OA) substantially perpendicular to the first and second inlet axes (1IA, 2IA); and a second outlet aperture (SOA) having a second outlet axis (2OA) substantially perpendicular to the first and second inlet axes (1IA, 2IA), wherein the second outlet axis (2OA) is substantially coplanar with the first outlet axis (1OA).
Miller does not explicitly disclose that a first flow path from the inlet channel to the first outlet aperture has a first distance, and a second flow path from the inlet channel to the second outlet aperture has a second distance substantially equal to the first distance.
However, Miller does disclose that the fittings may be arranged and adapted so as to best suit the particular use of the system (col. 1, lines 19-26).
Additionally, Taskar teaches a fluid manifold wherein a fluid block may have any number fluid ports and channels positioned as desired by a user (paras. [0022], [0030], [0031], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the manifold unit of Miller such that a first flow path from the inlet channel to the first outlet aperture has a first distance, and a second flow path from the inlet channel to the second outlet aperture has a second distance substantially equal to the first distance so as to provide the user with a manifold unit best suited for the system in which it was utilized as recognized by Miller and Taskar.
PNG
media_image1.png
553
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, the first and second outlet axes (1OA, 2OA) are substantially perpendicular to each other.
In regards to claim 3, the body (80) further defines: a first outlet channel (92, 84) that extends from the inlet channel (85) to the first outlet aperture (FOA), and a second outlet channel (89) that extends from the first outlet channel (92, 84) to the second outlet aperture (SOA).
In regards to claim 5, the inlet channel (85) extends along the first and second inlet axes (1IA, 2IA), the first outlet channel (92, 84) extends along the first outlet axis (1OA), and the second outlet channel (89) extends along the second outlet axis (2OA).
In regards to claim 6, the inlet channel, first outlet channel, and second outlet channel are at least partially threaded. See Figs. 3C and 4C.
In regards to claim 7, the inlet channel includes a first set of inlet threads adjacent to the first inlet aperture and a second set of inlet threads adjacent to the second inlet aperture, the first outlet channel has a first set of outlet threads adjacent to the first outlet aperture, and the second outlet channel has a second set of outlet threads adjacent to the second outlet aperture.
In regards to claim 8, the body comprises: a top surface (TS) extending along a top plane, a bottom surface (BS) opposite to the top surface that extends along a bottom plane, the bottom surface (BS) defining the first outlet aperture (FOA), a front surface (FS) extending along a front plane, the front surface (FS) defining the second outlet aperture (SOA), a rear surface (RS) opposite to the front surface, the rear surface (RS) extending along a rear plane, a left surface (LS) extending along a left plane, the left surface (LS) defining the first inlet aperture (FIA), and a right surface (RIS) opposite to the left surface (LS) that extends along a right plane, the right surface (RIS) defining the second inlet aperture.
PNG
media_image2.png
384
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9 the body comprises: a top surface (TS) extending along a top plane, a left surface (LS) extending along a left plane, the left surface (LS) defining the first inlet aperture (FIA) having a first inlet axis (1IA); a right surface (RIS) opposite to the left surface (LS) that extends along a right plane, the right surface (RIS) defining the second inlet aperture (SIA) having a second inlet axis (2IA) substantially coincident with the first inlet axis (1IA); a bottom surface (BS) opposite to the top surface that extends along a bottom plane, the bottom surface (BS) defining the first outlet aperture (FOA), having a first outlet axis (1OA) substantially perpendicular to the first and second inlet axes (1IA, 2IA); a front surface (FS) extending along a front plane, the front surface (FS) defining the second outlet aperture (SOA), having second outlet axis substantially perpendicular to the first and second inlet axes, wherein the second outlet axis is substantially coplanar with the first outlet axis (1OA); a rear surface (RS) opposite to the front surface, the rear surface (RS) extending along a rear plane, , and a first distance from the rear plane to the first outlet axis is substantially equal to a second distance between the bottom plane and the second outlet axis. The office notes that Miller discloses the first and second outlet axis being centered.
In regards to claim 10, the first outlet aperture (FOA) and second outlet aperture (SOA) are substantially centered between the left plane (i.e. LS) and right plane (i.e. RIS).
In regards to claims 11 and 12, see the rejection of claim 1 and at least col. 1, lines 19-26, which disclose that multiple fittings may be coupled together.
Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have coupled the plurality of manifold units such that at least one first manifold unit and at least one second manifold unit arranged such that the first outlet axis of each first manifold unit and the second outlet axis of each second manifold unit are substantially parallel and substantially coplanar to provide an on-site created manifold satisfying the particular usage requirements of the fluid system as taught by Miller. See the amended Fig. below.
PNG
media_image3.png
482
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Taskar and further in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (paras. [0003], [0004], and Fig. 9).
Miller, as modified, discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Miller does not specifically disclose a plurality of nozzles, wherein each nozzle is fluidly coupled to: the first outlet aperture of an associated first manifold unit, such that fluid can be delivered from the first manifold unit to the nozzle via the first outlet aperture, and the second outlet aperture of an associated second manifold unit, such that fluid can be delivered from the second manifold unit to the nozzle via the second outlet aperture.
However, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches first and second manifold systems 302A, 302B, which each include an inlet (not shown) and a plurality of outlets 304A, 304B in communication with the inlet. The applicator further includes a plurality of nozzles 378, wherein each nozzle 378 is fluidly coupled to a pair of associated outlets 304A, 304B via associated fluid lines 308A, 308B.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the system of Miller to include a plurality of nozzles as recited by the claim to deliver distinct fluids from the first and second outlet.
Miller does not specifically disclose a first fluid source containing a first fluid, wherein the first fluid source is fluidly coupled to the plurality of first manifold units such that the first fluid can be delivered from the first fluid source to each first manifold unit via the first inlet aperture or second inlet aperture of the first manifold unit, and a second fluid source containing a second fluid, wherein the second fluid source is fluidly coupled to the plurality of second manifold units such that the second fluid can be delivered from the second fluid source to each second manifold unit via the second inlet aperture or second inlet aperture of the second manifold unit.
However, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches that the inlets of the manifold systems 302A, 302B can be fluidly coupled to respective fluid sources, such that a first fluid can be delivered to the nozzles 378 via the first manifold system 302A and the first set of fluid lines 308A, and a second fluid can be delivered to the nozzles 378 via the second manifold system 302B and the second set of fluid lines 308B.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the system of Miller to include a plurality of nozzles as recited by the claim to deliver distinct fluids from the first and second outlet.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of LaMantia (U.S. Patent 5,927,337) and Rundo et al. (U.S. Publication. 2018/0147596), hereinafter “Rundo”.
Miller discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Miller further discloses that multiple units may be coupled together. See col. 1, lines 19-26.
Miller does not explicitly disclose two sets of manifold units, wherein each set includes a plurality of units, arranged together such that the first manifold units and second manifold units are arranged such that the first outlet axes of the first manifold units and the second outlet axes of the second manifold units are substantially parallel and substantially coplanar.
LaMantia teaches a plurality of manifold units coupled together wherein a manifold unit may be oriented 90 degrees to an adjacent unit (see for example Fig. 1: A, B and C). LaMantia teaches that orienting the units as such allows for the ports to be positioned to best suit the particular application.
Runda teaches a plurality of manifold unit sets (34 and 36) so as to provide a plurality of fluids to a delivery port.
Taken together, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized the manifold units of Miller wherein a plurality of manifold unit sets were utilized as taught by Runda wherein each unit set was oriented such that the first outlet axes of the first manifold units and the second outlet axes of the second manifold units are substantially parallel and substantially coplanar as taught LaMantia so as to provide a plurality of fluid flows to a delivery port while best organizing the system for the application in which the system was utilized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The amended independent claims merely incorporate subject matter from originally filed dependent claims. Applicant’s arguments do not address any deficiency with the office’s application of prior art in relation to these features.
Further, it is the office’s position that Miller, as modified by applicant’s admitted prior art, discloses the features of newly added claims 19 and 20 as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753