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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden because a thorough search for each should include the other. This is not found persuasive because at least the inventions as claimed are classified differently and require a different field of search such as the different classes/subclasses or different search strategies and/or queries, including different terms for a text search especially as, for example, the invention of Group 2 recites a mounting plate which is not recited in Group 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/30/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 12/2/2024 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one projecting web and at least one projection and at least one pin on one of the connection blocks and a complementary groove and a complementary recess on the adjacent connection block from claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The recitations above appear to be alternative embodiments and there are no figures that depict all of these features simultaneously. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, “is configured” should be --are configured--.
Claim 7, line 2, “a connection fittings” should be --as connection fittings--.
Claim 8, line 2, “valves” should be singular (i.e. “valve”).
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1, lines 11-12 recite “the mold parting plane F”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, the last three lines, it is not understood what is meant by “the mold parting plane F of a connection blocks extending through the fluid connections of this connection block”.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 is further rejected as it is unclear if the limitations following the term “in particular” are required or not. For the purposes of examination, the recitations following “in particular” will be interpreted to be alternative, optional features.
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 and 4-8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne et al. (U.S. 8,235,067) in view of Clayton et al. (U.S. 6,328,070) and Hamm et al. (U.S. 9,910,446).
Gagne discloses a valve assembly, comprising: at least two fluid valves (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, with pinch valves 62) which are placed next to each other along a direction of alignment A (fig. 1) and each have a driving side (the sides where the lead lines for 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 are located) and a fluid side (the sides closer to 8 in fig. 1), and a fluid connection unit (4, 6) which extends along the direction of alignment A over the fluid side of the fluid valves, wherein the fluid connection unit is composed of at least two connection blocks (4, 6) each of which extends along the direction of alignment A over the fluid valves (fig. 1) and is provided with fluid connections (40a, 40b, 42a, 42b, etc.) wherein each connection block is mechanically connected to the adjacent connection block (via 54), and the mold parting plane F of a connection blocks extending through the fluid connections of this connection block (as best understood, shown in fig. 1).
Gagne does not appear to disclose the connection block mechanically connected to the fluid valves or the connection blocks configured as injection-molded parts.
Clayton teaches it was known in the art to couple a similar fluid connection unit to a fluid valve unit via mechanical connection (bolts 28 connecting which connect blocks 12 to blocks 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gagne by having the fluid valve components mechanically coupled to the connection unit(s) as taught by Clayton in order to provide a known, inexpensive means to couple the components together that also is secure yet allows for easy disassembly as well by removal of the fasteners.
To the extent that the applicant recites the connection blocks configured as “injection-molded parts”, the process of injection molding is a product-by-process and has not been given patentable weight; however, the limitation is seen to require the material of the connection blocks to be capable of being injection molded, while Gagne does disclose the connection blocks as being made of plastic (col. 4, ll. 32-34), Gagne is silent as to the plastic being capable of being injection molded.
However, Hamm teaches it was known in the art to have similar block components for a valve assembly to be made by injection molding of plastic (and thus of a material that is able to be injection molded, see col. 8, ll. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plastic of the connection blocks of Gagne by having the plastic be a type of plastic that is able to be injection molded as taught by Hamm in order to be able to easily and inexpensively manufacture the connection blocks and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Gagne as modified further discloses wherein the connection blocks are provided with reciprocal stops (the respective surfaces of 4 and 6 which face toward each other and provide structure to stop each other from further movement toward each other; alternatively the holes 56 for the fasteners 54 which stop movement for each of the connection blocks as they are fastened together).
Regarding claim 5, Gagne as modified further discloses wherein the connection blocks are provided with complementary engagement formations (the openings 56 that receive the fasteners 54 for each of the blocks to provide the coupled engagement with each of the components), in particular at least one projecting web and/or at least one projection and/or at least one pin on one of the connection blocks and a complementary groove and/or a complementary recess on the adjacent connection block.
Regarding claim 6, Gagne as modified further discloses wherein the connection blocks are connected to each other via stiffening elements in a direction transverse to the direction of alignment A (fasteners 54, as “stiffening elements” is broad and subjective and the fasteners 54 stiffen the connection amongst the components and further as they are vertically inserted which is transverse to the left to right length of the direction of alignment as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Gagne as modified further discloses wherein the fluid connections are designed a connection fittings (flange fittings 42a, 42b, 44a, 44b, etc.) which extend away from the corresponding connection block (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Gagne as modified further discloses wherein the connection blocks are provided with valve seats (the structure that forms the fluid paths 38 in fig. 4 which form seats for the valves 62 to contact) on the side facing the fluid valves (fig. 1, fig. 4).
Claim(s) 2-3, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne in view of Clayton and Hamm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Starzmann (U.S. 9,625,049).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Gagne as modified discloses the claimed invention and while Gagne discloses the fasteners can be other types of fasteners (col. 5, ll. 24-25), Gagne is silent as to the fastening be performed by hooks that are snap hooks which engage elastically into an undercut opening of the adjacent connection block.
Starzmann teaches it was known in the art to connect blocks together in a valve assembly by hooks that are snap hooks which engage elastically into an undercut opening of the adjacent connection block (hook 76a that connects to rib shaped groove 84 (the rib shape forming an undercut groove) to couple 52 to 2, see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gagne by having the mechanical connection of the two blocks be a hook and groove connection as taught by Starzmann in order to provide a functionally equivalent connection for the two blocks yet uses fewer components (as fewer fasteners would be needed).
Claim(s) 9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagne in view of Clayton and Hamm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Igarashi (U.S. 8,783,295).
Gagne as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses screw openings extending transversely through one of the connection blocks (openings 56 for screws 54) but does not appear to disclose a nut arranged at the end facing the adjacent connection block.
Igarashi teaches it was known in the art to connect blocks together for a valve assembly with through-bolts (50) and nuts (51) located within openings in the blocks (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gagne by having nuts located within the screw openings that connect with the screws/bolts as taught by Igarashi in order to more securely fasten the blocks together in a removable manner with better strength and vibration resistance and also reduce the risk of stripping any threading of the holes which would be needed if the bolts were threaded directly with the openings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dettmann et al. (U.S. 4,230,143) discloses a control valve arrangement with multiple connected blocks.
Fukano et al. (U.S. 5,459,953) discloses a manifold valve with seals at the points of connection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753