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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/29/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites that the fixing portion includes a first receiving portion and a second receiving portion. Yet, a first receiving portion and a second receiving portion are already recited in claim 1. Claim 7 is to be amended to be in accord with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takada et al (US 7,0173,825).
As to claim 1, Takada et al discloses a joint assembly comprising: a joint that includes a flow path penetrating through the joint (Fig. 4); and a fixing portion (27) to which the joint is attached; wherein the joint includes: at least two mounting portions (6/20; 19) to which a tube (23; 11) is mounted; and an intermediate portion (21) that is located between the at least two mounting portions (see Figs. 3 and 4); and the fixing portion extends in a first intersecting direction (longitudinal axis of the plates 27a, 27b) intersecting the flow path and abuts on the intermediate portion (Fig. 4); wherein the fixing portion includes a first metal plate (27a) and a second metal plate (27b) that extend in the first intersecting direction; the first metal plate includes a first receiving portion (32a, Fig. 3) contacting and receiving the intermediate portion from one side in a second intersecting direction intersecting the flow path (Figs. 3 and 4); and the second metal plate includes a second receiving portion (32a) contacting and receiving the intermediate portion from another side in the second intersecting direction (Figs. 3 and 4).
Note that given the broadest reasonable interpretation, one of the manifold blocks 11, 12, 13 has been considered a tube, especially given the following definition of “tube”, from Oxford Languages Dictionary:
tube /to͞ob/ noun
1. a long, hollow cylinder of metal, plastic, glass, etc. for holding or transporting something, chiefly liquids or gases.
"a plastic tube is connected to the tap and the beer is ready to be pulled"
2. a thing in the form of or resembling a tube.
As to claim 2, Takada et al discloses the joint assembly according to claim 1, wherein the joint further includes a protruding portion that protrudes in the first intersecting direction from between the intermediate portion and one of the at least two mounting portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Takada et al discloses the joint assembly according to claim 1, wherein the joint further includes at least two protruding portions that protrudes in the first intersecting direction from between the intermediate portion and the at least two mounting portions; and the fixing portion is located between the two protruding portions and abuts on the intermediate portion located between the two protruding portions. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 5, Takada et al discloses a joint assembly comprising: a joint that includes a flow path penetrating through the joint (Fig. 4); and a fixing portion (27) to which the joint is attached; wherein the joint includes: at least two mounting portions (6/20; 19) to which a tube (23; 11) is mounted; and an intermediate portion (21) that is located between the at least two mounting portions (Figs. 3 and 4); and the fixing portion extends in a first intersecting direction (longitudinal axis of the plates 27a, 27b) intersecting the flow path and abuts on the intermediate portion (Fig. 4); wherein the intermediate portion includes: a large diameter portion that has a predetermined diameter; and a small diameter portion that is located adjacent to the large diameter portion in an extending direction along the flow path and has a smaller diameter than the large diameter portion; and the fixing portion includes: a first receiving portion (32a, Fig. 3) contacting and receiving the intermediate portion from one side in a second intersecting direction intersecting the flow path (Figs. 3 and 4); and the second metal plate includes a second receiving portion (32a) contacting and receiving the intermediate portion from another side in the second intersecting direction (Figs. 3 and 4).
Note that given the broadest reasonable interpretation, one of the manifold blocks 11, 12, 13 has been considered a tube, especially given the following definition of “tube”, from Oxford Languages Dictionary:
tube /to͞ob/ noun
1. a long, hollow cylinder of metal, plastic, glass, etc. for holding or transporting something, chiefly liquids or gases.
"a plastic tube is connected to the tap and the beer is ready to be pulled"
2. a thing in the form of or resembling a tube.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Takada et al discloses the joint assembly according to claim 5, wherein the fixing portion further includes a metal plate that includes a through-hole through which the mounting portion is inserted, and an edge of the through-hole abutting on the joint. Refer to Figs. 3 and 4.
As to claim 7, Takada et al discloses the joint assembly according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate portion includes: a large diameter portion that has a predetermined diameter; and a small diameter portion that is located adjacent to the large diameter portion in an extending direction along the flow path and has a smaller diameter than the large diameter portion; and the fixing portion includes: (the) first receiving portion contacting and receiving the intermediate portion from one side in a second intersecting direction intersecting the flow path; and the second metal plate includes (the) second receiving portion contacting and receiving the intermediate portion from another side in the second intersecting direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Tanaka et al discloses the joint assembly according to claim 7, wherein the fixing portion further includes a metal plate that includes a through-hole through which the mounting portion is inserted, and an edge of the through-hole abutting on the joint. Refer to Figs. 3 and 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al in view of Franz et al (US 2016/0356558).
As to claim 9, Takada et al is silent as to whether his assembly and system can be used in refrigeration, cooling, heat exchange, or the like which employ coolant and coolant distribution.
Nevertheless, Franz et al teaches a fluid manifold similar to that of Takada et al, and used in a cooling system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ Takada et al’s assembly in a cooling system, as taught by Franz et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide easy connection of a plurality of ports by one operation (see col. 1, ll. 6-8).
As to claim 10, Takada et al is silent as to whether his assembly and system can be used in refrigeration, heat exchange, or the like which employ coolant and coolant distribution.
Nevertheless, Franz et al teaches a fluid manifold similar to that of Takada et al, and used in a cooling system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ Takada et al’s assembly in a cooling system, as taught by Franz et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide easy connection of a plurality of ports by one operation (see col. 1, ll. 6-8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679