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 § 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 1-20 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 recites the limitation "the first fluid conduits" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second fluid conduits" in line 5. It is assumed that they refer to “first plurality of parallel fluid conduits” and “second plurality of parallel fluid conduits” respectively.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second fluid conduits" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first fluid conduits" in line 5. It is assumed that they refer to “second plurality of parallel fluid conduits” and “first plurality of parallel fluid conduits” respectively.
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 1, 3-5, 7, 11-13, 15, 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nassef et al (20050019794).
Regarding claim 1, Nassef (Fig 1-7B, with the multiple valve/conduit arrangement of Fig 26A-26D) discloses a fluid transport and distribution manifold comprising: a support (outer perimeter of electrometric structure containing end ports of horizontal and vertical flow passages in Fig 26A) ; a first plurality of parallel fluid conduits (horizontal passages e.g. 4402,4402a) passing through the support; and a second plurality of parallel fluid conduits (vertical passages with valves 4406) passing through the support perpendicular to, and interwoven with, the first fluid conduits, at least some of the second fluid conduits being selectably fluidly (by valves 4406 and intersections) connected to one or more of the first plurality of fluid conduits.
As to claim 3, fluid connections between the first and second fluid conduits are established by permanent connections (intersections are seen a permanent) therebetween.
As to claim 4, fluid connections between the first and second fluid conduits are established by adjustable transfer valves 4406 (Para 205 controlling flow rate).
As to claim 5, transfer valves are manually adjustable (membrane 25 of valve in Fig 7B is seen as capable of being manually manipulated).
As to claim 7, 11, the valves are electronically adjustable (Para 208) which would necessarily include circuitry for receiving user commands to electronically adjust the particular transfer valves and their opening levels.
As to claim 12, wherein each of the first conduits (Fig 26A) is connected, via separate transfer valves, to all of the second conduits.
As to claim 13, the bottom portion base surface of the bottom most substrate layer (bottom surface of 10 in Fig 1) is seen as rigid support for the conduits which has channels of different depths (Fig 7A for example).
As to claims 15 and 16, the ends of substrate forming the grid of Fig 26A-D) are seen as first, second and third pluralities of connectable ports, a first plurality of connectable ports (horizontal left), each of the first connectable ports affording fluid access to a free end of one of the first (horizontal) conduits, each of the second connectable ports (vertical left), affording fluid access to a first end of one of the second (vertical) conduits and each of the third connectable ports (vertical right), affording fluid access to a second end of one of the second conduits
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Perkins et al (3012408).
In making and/or using the device of Perkins (Fig 3,4), for fluid transport, one would perform the steps of interweaving first and second pluralities of parallel fluid conduits (first parallel horizontal conduits 42 interwoven with similar parallel vertical conduits shown in Fig 4), the first and second pluralities of fluid conduits being substantially perpendicular to each other; fluidly connecting the second (vertical) fluid conduits to the first plurality (horizontal 42) of fluid conduits; and causing fluid to flow from at least some of the first fluid conduits into second fluid conduits to which they are fluidly connected (during flow from 20-34 in Fig 3) ; and wherein the fluid connections are permanent (at intersections between 44).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Unger et al (20090291435).
In making and/or using the device of Unger Fig 1A, for fluid transport, one would perform the steps of interweaving first and second pluralities of parallel fluid conduits 104,102, the first and second pluralities of fluid conduits being substantially perpendicular to each other; fluidly connecting (at 106) each of at least some of the second fluid conduits to one or more of the first plurality of fluid conduits; and causing fluid to flow from at least some of the first fluid conduits (Para 109,110) into second fluid conduits to which they are fluidly connected; and wherein the fluid connections are permanent (at intersections 106). The fluid connections are permanent (intersections being permanent) and also each fluid connection is adjustable by valves 108,110.
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassef et al (20050019794).
Nassef fails to disclose wired/wireless network interface. However, Official Notice is taken that wired/wireless network interface, for the purpose of signal transmission to electronic components are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ wired/wireless network interface in the device of Nassef for the purpose of signal transmission to electronic components as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassef et al (20050019794) in view of Unger et al (20020029814).
Regarding claim 6, Nassef fails to disclose the valves as check valves. Unger (Para 508, Fig 63) teaches using check valves at conduit intersections.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Nassef with check valves at conduit intersections as taught by Unger in order to prevent unwanted backflow.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 2-11, 13-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11796111. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims language in the pending application are broader than the claims of the issued Patent. That is, the more specific patented claims “anticipate” the broader application claims. See in re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010. Since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, claims 1-20 are seen as obvious over claims 1, 1, 2-11, 13-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11796111.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 1, 15-17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12188599. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims language in the pending application are broader than the claims of the issued Patent. That is, the more specific patented claims “anticipate” the broader application claims. See in re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010. Since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, claims 1-17 are seen as obvious over claims 1-13, 1, 15-17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12188599.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. 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, or 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 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753