DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 11/21/2025.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 102 rejections of the previous action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending 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.
Since applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection, this action has been made Final.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a three-way intersection” should be - - a three-way intersection or a two-way intersection - -.
. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first opening portion" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation , “the valve rotates above a valve axis” which is unclear as to how the valve is situated in this manner. Should the limitation “above”, be changed to - -about - -? How does applicant’s valve 13 rotate above a valve axis?
PNG
media_image1.png
496
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “the joining portion has a cutout portion that equalizes a thickness of a three-way intersection in a boundary region of the three-way intersection where two partition walls, or one partition wall and an outer wall of the housing intersect”, which is unclear as to how one partition wall with an outer wall create a “three-way” intersection. Should “a three-way intersection” be changed to - - a three-way intersection or a two-way intersection - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (US 11448333).
Regarding claim 13, Kondo et al. disclose a manifold (1) comprising: a valve (20,42,41,81,84,85,63,67) configured to control a flow of fluid; and a housing (10) having, in an internal space, a plurality of flow path chambers (the chambers within 11,12,13) which is partitioned by a partition wall (the outer wall of 11a,13a) and through which the fluid flows, wherein the housing includes a joining portion (at 57 inside of 10a,b) where an upper housing (53,55) having a first opening (the opening within 57) opened downward and a lower housing (10,10a,b) having a second opening (within the inner neck of 10a) opened upward are joined by thermally welding (col.8,lns. 8-11) the first opening and the second opening, and the joining portion is disposed above or below a center (above the horizontal longitudinal centerline through 11a,13a, see Fig. 4) of the housing in an upper-lower direction, wherein the joining portion has a cutout portion (the recessed section of 10a) that equalizes a thickness of a three-way intersection in a boundary region (the region of the connecting surfaces at joint at 57) of the three-way intersection where two partition walls (vertical wall and bottom angled wall), or one partition wall and an outer wall (inner wall of 10a is considered as being an outer wall) of the housing intersect.
PNG
media_image2.png
973
1087
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Kondo et al. disclose the valve includes a tubular portion (the upper portion of 10a,b) centered on a vertical axis (along axis “L”) along the upper-lower direction, and a valve body (20) accommodated in the tubular portion to be rotatable about the vertical axis, and the joining portion includes a first annular rib disposed at a lower end position of the tubular portion and a second annular rib disposed inside the first annular rib in a region centered on the vertical axis (as shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
970
1069
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paley (US 4432392) in view of Kondo et al. (US 11448333). The claims are being rejected as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, Paley discloses a manifold comprising: a valve (71-75) configured to control a flow of fluid; and a housing (106,27) having, in an internal space, a plurality of flow path chambers (32, 42-46) which is partitioned by a partition wall (31) and through which the fluid flows (col. , wherein the housing includes a joining portion where an upper housing (106) having a first opening (107) opened downward and a lower housing (27) having a second opening (67) opened upward are joined by thermally welding (col.3, lns. 41-43) the first opening and the second opening, and the joining portion is disposed above (as shown in figure 7 the joining portion being the top surface at 24 and the tops of 57-61, is above the center) or below a center of the housing in an upper-lower direction.
Paley, as best understood, discloses that the valve rotates above (being considered as “about”, where the valve rotates about the rotary axis) a valve axis that extends from the upper housing toward the lower housing.
Paley discloses the second opening (at 67) is formed by an lower partition wall rib (the thickness of 59) extending upward from an lower surface (the bottom inner surface of 22) of the lower housing facing the upper housing.
PNG
media_image4.png
1423
970
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Paley discloses all of the features of the claimed invention although is silent to having that, the first opening portion is formed by an upper partition wall rib extending downward from an upper surface of the upper housing facing the lower housing.
Kondo et al. teach that the first opening portion is formed by an upper partition wall rib (57, see Fig. 4) extending downward from an upper surface (the inner horizontal surface of 53) of the upper housing facing the lower housing (10).
PNG
media_image5.png
888
1061
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the rib as taught by Kondo et al. to have the first opening portion is formed by an upper partition wall rib extending downward from an upper surface of the upper housing facing the lower housing, in order to ensure a proper location of the two halves of the housings to ensure a proper welding joint is realized.
Regarding claim 2, Paley discloses the joining portion has a cutout portion (the open area between border 24 and the section of 40 intersecting with 67, see Fig. 7 above)) that equalizes a thickness of a three-way intersection in a boundary region of the three-way intersection where two partition walls, or one partition wall (40) and an outer wall (at 24) of the housing intersect.
Regarding claim 3, Paley discloses the valve includes a tubular portion (within 67) centered on a vertical axis along the upper-lower direction, and a valve body (75a) accommodated in the tubular portion to be rotatable about the vertical axis, and the joining portion includes a first annular rib (85) disposed at a lower end position of the tubular portion and a second annular rib (the bottom of 67 surrounding 75a) disposed inside the first annular rib in a region centered on the vertical axis.
Regarding claim 4, Paley discloses the valve includes a tubular portion (within 67) centered on a vertical axis along the upper-lower direction, and a valve body (75a) accommodated in the tubular portion to be rotatable about the vertical axis, and the joining portion includes a first annular rib (85) disposed at a lower end position of the tubular portion and a second annular rib (the bottom of 67 surrounding 75a) disposed inside the first annular rib in a region centered on the vertical axis.
Regarding claim 5, Paley discloses an outer wall (23) of the housing which forms the flow path chamber relatively long in a direction in which the fluid flows among the plurality of flow path chambers (42-46) has a curved shape (the shapes of 57-61 are curved and bulge toward 42-46) bulging toward the flow path chamber.
Regarding claim 6, Paley discloses an outer wall (at 23) of the housing and the partition wall are connected by a part (the portion of 31 between 67 and 34) of an inflow and outflow pipe (the portion of 42 between 67 and 24,23).
Regarding claim 7, Paley discloses a vertical wall portion (23) is formed along an outer periphery of the housing.
Regarding claim 8, Paley discloses a vertical wall portion (the portion of 23 near 42) has a liquid discharge hole (the hole of 42) for discharging a liquid that enters inside of the vertical wall portion.
Regarding claim 9, Kondo et al. teach disclose the first opening is a rib lower end portion of an upper rib (57) extending downward in the upper housing (53), and the second opening is a rib upper end portion of a lower rib (the rib of 10 a surrounding 57) formed in the lower housing (10a, as shown below) and extending upward, and an upper rib width that is a thickness of the rib lower end portion is different from a lower rib width that is a thickness of the rib upper end portion (as shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
542
1183
media_image6.png
Greyscale
When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2125.
Regarding claim 10, the combined device of Paley and Kondo et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention including a joining width (at the intersection of the two widths as shown above) for thermally welding the rib lower end portion and the rib upper end portion, although are silent that this this width is 4 mm or more and 8 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have joining width as being 4 mm or more and 8 mm or less, since, by routine optimization, it has been held that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the width as being 4 mm or more and 8 mm or less, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the combined device of Paley and Kondo et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention including that the ribs have different widths, as shown, although are silent that a width of a thinner rib is 75% to 88% of a width of a thicker rib.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the a width of a thinner rib is 75% to 88% of a width of a thicker rib, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
The following rejections are given in an alternative manner should the above rejections be not persuasive.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paley and Kondo et al. in view of Baylis et al. (US 7407338).
Regarding claim 10, the combined device of Paley and Kondo et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention including a joining width (at the intersection of the two widths as shown above) for thermally welding the rib lower end portion and the rib upper end portion, although is silent that this this width is 4 mm or more and 8 mm or less.
Baylis et al. disclose a plastic joint at figures 1-3 that teach the use of a width as being 4 mm or more and 8 mm or less (at least 5.5 mm, col. 7, lns. 12-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify a joining width in the combined device of Paley and Kondo et al. as taught by Baylis et al. to have the width as being 4 mm or more and 8 mm or less, in order to utilize a laser weld method the will yield a satisfactory joint between plastic components (Baylis et al., col. 7,lns 14-20), which provides a stronger weld (Baylis et al., col. 2, lns. 3-12).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the combined device of Paley and Kondo et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention including that the ribs have different widths, as shown, although are silent a width of a thinner rib is 75% to 88% of a width of a thicker rib.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the a width of a thinner rib is 75% to 88% of a width of a thicker rib, in the combined device of Paley and Kondo et al. and Baylis et al., since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753