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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/4/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deackoff US 2898866 in view of FITTING LOSS COEFFICIENTS, by ASHRAE, published 2021.
Deackoff discloses:
1. (Currently amended) A distribution manifold for a pressure exchange chamber pumping system having a plurality of pressure exchange chambers arranged in parallel, which includes:
a hollow manifold body defining a distribution chamber and positioned in an upright orientation and defining a central, upright axis; an inlet leading into the body for receiving medium to be pumped, comprising solid particles transported in a liquid (see e.g. annotated Fig 1 herein); a plurality of spaced apart outlets opening operatively out of the manifold body (see close up of annotated Fig 1 herein); and a plurality of pipes, each pipe extending from a respective outlet to an associated medium inlet valve (24, 24’) of one of the pressure exchange chambers and the pipes are spaced around the central axis of the manifold (see close up of annotated Fig 1 herein), the medium inlet valves being in an upright orientation (see Fig 1), whereby on closure of a medium inlet valve, solid particles settle down the associated pipe under gravity and away from the medium inlet valve to prevent blockage thereof (se e.g. Fig 1).
Deackoff does not disclose the outlets opening operatively upwardly, each pipe extending upwards from a respective outlet, and each pipe is inclined at an angle in the range of approximately 20 degrees to 80 degrees relative thereto.
However, ASHRAE discloses the use of a wye fitting wherein the outlets open operatively upwardly, each pipe extending upwards from a respective outlet, and each pipe is inclined at an angle in the range of approximately 20 degrees to 80 degrees relative thereto (see e.g. 45 deg in Fig 5-33 and 45 deg elbow in Fig 3-3, and see Fig 3-2).
A simple substitution of one known pipe fitting (a 45 deg wye fitting and a pair of 45 deg elbows) for another (a tee fitting) with the predictable result of creating two branches from a main line has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B). Using simple known pipe fittings such as a wye fitting and two 45 deg elbows as a simple substitution for a tee fitting is a “common sense”, self-evident and elementary substitution for a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use fittings such a 45 deg wye fitting and two 45 elbows as taught by ASHRAE as a simple substitution for the tee fitting of Deackoff to gain the benefit of reducing hydraulic flow resistance as indicated in Figs 5-33, and 3-2 at 3-piece).
PNG
media_image1.png
609
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
555
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
609
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Deackoff as modified above discloses:
2.(Original) The distribution manifold of claim 1, in which the body includes a base and a top which is secured to the base to define the distribution chamber, the inlet extending through the base and the outlets extending through the top (see annotated Fig 5-33 of ASHRAE herein).
3.(Currently amended) The distribution manifold of claim 1,in which each pipe has a coupling formation at its upstream end whereby it is connectable to an associated medium inlet valve (see close up of annotated Fig 1 of Deackoff herein).
4.(Currently amended) The distribution manifold of claim 1, in which the pipes are equiangularly spaced around a the central axis of the manifold and each pipe is inclined at an angle in the range of approximately 20 degrees to 80 degrees relative to a central, upright axis of the manifold (see 45 deg in Fig 5-33 of ASHRAE).
5.(Original) The distribution manifold of claim 4, in which the angle of inclination is in the range of approximately 40 degrees to 50 degrees (see 45 deg in Fig 5-33 of ASHRAE).
6.(Currently amended) The distribution manifold of any one of claims claim 2, which includes an inlet pipe having a downstream end which is connected to the base and an upstream end which is connectable to the medium supply to connect the inlet of the distribution manifold in flow communication with the medium supply (see inlet in Fig 1 of Deackoff which is a pipe and is obviously connectable to a fluid supply in order to direct fluid into the pressure exchangers).
8.(Currently amended) A common medium input device comprising a distribution manifold according to claim 1, and a plurality of medium input valves (24, 24’ of Deackoff); wherein each of the pipes has an upstream end which is connected to one of the outlets and a downstream end which is connectable to an associated medium inlet valve (see Fig 1 of Deackoff), each pipe being inclined operatively upwardly away from the body such that, in use, the upstream end is positioned at a level which is lower than the downstream end (see Fig 5-33 of ASHME).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deackoff US 2898866 in view of FITTING LOSS COEFFICIENTS, by ASHRAE, published 2021 in further view of Kuhn US 20210123551.
Regarding claim 7, Deackoff does not disclose the details of the inlet pipe and thus does not disclose the limitation of claim 7.
Kuhn discloses a connecting formation is provided at the upstream end of the inlet pipe for connection with a feed line in flow communication with a discharge side of a feeder pump (see e.g. Fig 17 and 0114 including “Each port 430 may be or comprise a fluid conduit terminating with a coupling, such as a flange, a boss coupling, a threaded connector, among other examples, operable to fluidly connect with a corresponding port or fluid connector of the fluid conduit 307 to fluidly connect an outlet of a corresponding pump 306 with the fluid inlet 332 of a corresponding pressure exchanger 320.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a connector such as a flange as taught by Kuhn on the inlet pipe of Deackoff as modified above to gain the benefit of connecting the inlet pipe to a fluid source.
Conclusion
See form PTO-892 for additional prior art made of record but not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights