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 filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the prior art reference Olmsted does not teach a manifold, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the term “manifold” merely limits the claim to a pipe or chamber with several inlets or outlets used to merge or distribute fluids which the prior art Olmsted does read on. Examiner also notes that the prior art Olmsted is used as a secondary reference in the prior art rejection, and the primary reference Lemmon et al. disclose the claimed manifold with a cartridge valve. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Hence the secondary reference Olmsted is not required to teach a manifold with a cartridge valve, the secondary reference is merely teaching sub-fluid lines within the manifold.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the prior art reference Olmsted does not teach sub-fluid lines as claimed, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that Olmsted teaches vanes within a common annular chamber and not enclosed sub-fluid lines within a manifold, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The structure disclosed by Olmstead does read on the claimed language of the sub-fluid lines since the “vanes” do create an enclosed sub-fluid line in between two respective vanes or in between a vane and the housing as is clearly illustrated in Figure 3, the enclosed sub-fluid lines illustrated in Figure 3 have one end connected to a main fluid line and the other end connected to a valve receptacle.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the motivation to combine is improper, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a motivation for the rejection is found in the reference as is rejected below.
In regard to applicant’s argument of the teardrop orientation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Hence the teardrop shape is a known shape as taught by the prior art and is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as is rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s claim language of “three main fluid lines each in fluid communication with the three fluid openings of at least one of the three valve receptacles” is potentially interpreted as one of the “valve receptacles” being connected to all three main fluid lines, which there is no disclosure for in applicant’s disclosure, since applicant limits each respective valve receptacle to being connected to a respective main fluid line. Hence one main fluid line is connected to one respective valve receptacle based on applicant’s disclosure.
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 2-4 and 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a cartridge valve” was previously introduced in claim 1 and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same cartridge valve or another.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “three main fluid lines each in fluid communication with the three fluid openings of at least one of the three valve receptacles” is considered indefinite since it is unclear what the applicant is referring to since applicant provides no disclosure for such claim language. For the purpose of this examination it will be interpreted as disclosed by the applicant where each respective main fluid line is connected to a respective one of the three valve receptacles.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemmon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,096,880) in view of Olmsted (U.S. Patent No. 3,435,851).
Regarding claim 1, Lemmon et al. disclose a fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), comprising: a cavity (11) having an annular wall (Fig. 1), wherein the cavity (11) is configured to receive a cartridge valve (20); a plurality of valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) disposed (Fig. 1) to provide fluid communication to the cartridge valve (20), each of the plurality of valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) comprising a sloped ridge (Fig. 1) disposed within the annular wall (Fig. 1) and at least one fluid opening (opening connected to main lines 16, 17, and 18) disposed along the sloped ridge (Fig. 1); a plurality of main fluid lines (16, 17 and 18), wherein each of the plurality of main fluid lines (16, 17, and 18) is in fluid communication with one of the at least one fluid opening (Fig. 1) of at least one of the plurality of valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1); wherein the fluid manifold (10) is configured for additive manufacturing (product by process) and the sloped ridge (Fig. 1) is compliant with a design-for-additive-manufacturing constraint (product by process), but lacks disclosure of a plurality of sub-fluid lines, wherein each of the plurality of main fluid lines in fluid communication with one of at least one fluid opening of at least one of the plurality of valve receptacles via at least one of the plurality of sub-fluid lines, a number of the at least one fluid opening at each of the plurality of valve receptacles equals to a number of the plurality of sub-fluid lines at a corresponding valve receptacle.
The manifold produced by additive manufacturing does not limit the claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Olmsted teach a fluid manifold (Figs. 1-3) comprising a cavity (14) having a plurality of valve receptacles (50), wherein each valve receptacle (50) is connected to a main fluid line (34, 36, 38, 40, or 42) via a plurality of sub-fluid lines (at 46, from the main fluid line which is at the first two arrows at the bottom of Figure 3 towards the beginning of each respective sub fluid line at an end of the respective vane 48, and then towards the end of each respective sub-fluid line at the end of the respective vane where just about each sub-fluid line has an arrow pointing towards the valve receptacle as is illustrated in Figure 3) that connect to a plurality of fluid openings (Fig. 3, Column 2 lines 45-72) at the respective valve receptacle (50), and a number of the at least one fluid opening (openings illustrated in Figure 3 towards the receptacle 50 that majority have an arrow) at each of the plurality of valve receptacles (50) equals to a number of the plurality of sub-fluid lines (each respective sub-fluid line in between two vanes or in between a vane and the housing as is illustrated in Figure 3) at a corresponding (Column 2 lines 45-72) valve receptacle (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main fluid lines of Lemmon et al. with a plurality of sub-fluid lines as taught by Olmsted, for the advantage of directing fluid flow from a plurality of sides to reduce the imbalance of fluid forces on the valve and improve valve flow characteristics (Column 1 lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 2, Lemmon et al. disclose the fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), wherein at least one of the plurality of valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) is configured to engage with a cartridge valve (20) and seat the cartridge valve (Fig. 1) when the cartridge valve (20) is disposed within the cavity (11).
Regarding claim 3, Lemmon et al. disclose the fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), wherein the cartridge valve (20) is further configured to lock in place (Column 3 lines 23-40) when engaged by at least one of the plurality of valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1).
Regarding claim 4, Lemmon et al. disclose the fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), wherein the cartridge valve (20) comprises a plurality of ports (46) and each of the at least one fluid opening (openings to main lines 16, 17, and 18) of the plurality of valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) is configured to engage with at least one of the plurality of ports (Column 3 lines 41-66).
Regarding claim 5, Lemmon et al. disclose the fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), wherein the fluid manifold (10) comprises three valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) and three main fluid lines (16, 17, and 18).
Regarding claim 6, Olmsted (modified above) teach wherein each of the main fluid lines (34, 36, 38, 40, or 42) is in fluid communication with three sub-fluid lines (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lemmon et al. disclose the fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), wherein the cartridge valve (20) further comprises a gasket (33) and at least one sloped ridge (Fig. 1) is configured to (“configured to” merely limits the claim to capable of performing the claimed function, and the disclosed sloped ridge is capable of reducing damage to the gaskets in the same manner as applicant’s sloped ridge) reduce damage to the gasket (33).
Regarding claim 8, Lemmon et al. disclose the fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), wherein the fluid manifold (10) is configured for a fluid flow (encompassed by the disclosed pressurized fluid, Column 2 lines 4-17) selected from the group consisting of a liquid flow, a gaseous flow, or a mixture of a liquid flow and a gaseous flow.
Regarding claim 9, Lemmon et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lack disclosure wherein the fluid flow comprises a fluid selected from the group consisting of: a liquid fuel for engines or launch vehicles, a gaseous fuel for engines or launch vehicles, an igniter gas for engines, an inert gas, a cooling liquid, a cooling gas, a cryogenic liquid, a cryogenic gas, a cryogenic inert gas, liquid oxygen, cryogenic liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, cryogenic liquid hydrogen, kerosene, hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressurized fluid of Lemmon et al. to a fluid selected from the group consisting of: a liquid fuel for engines or launch vehicles, a gaseous fuel for engines or launch vehicles, an igniter gas for engines, an inert gas, a cooling liquid, a cooling gas, a cryogenic liquid, a cryogenic gas, a cryogenic inert gas, liquid oxygen, cryogenic liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, cryogenic liquid hydrogen, kerosene, hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide, since the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use any of the claimed pressurized fluids in a fluid manifold for their desired intended use.
Regarding claim 20, Lemmon et al. disclose a fluid manifold (Figs. 1-5), comprising: a cavity (11) having an annular wall (Fig. 1); three valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) each comprising a sloped ridge (Fig. 1) disposed within the annular wall and a fluid opening (openings leading to main lines 16, 17, and 18, Fig. 1) disposed along the sloped ridge (Fig. 1); three main fluid lines (16, 17, and 18) each in fluid communication (Column 3 lines 41-66) with a respective fluid opening (Fig. 1) of at least one of the three valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1); and a cartridge valve (20) comprising a plurality of ports (46) and at least one gasket (33); wherein each of the three valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1 and 18.1) is configured to engage with the cartridge valve (20) and seat (Fig. 1) the cartridge valve when the cartridge valve (20) is disposed within the cavity (11), each of the at least one fluid opening is configured to engage with at least one of the plurality of ports (46, Column 3 lines 41-66), the cartridge valve (20) is configured to lock in place (Column 3 lines 23-40) when engaged by at least one of the three valve receptacles (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1), and each sloped ridge (Fig. 1) is configured to (“configured to” merely limits the claim to capable of performing the claimed function, and the disclosed sloped ridge is capable of reducing damage to the gaskets in the same manner as applicant’s sloped ridge) reduce damage to the at least one gasket (33), but lacks disclosure of three fluid openings disposed along the sloped ridge instead of a fluid opening, a plurality of sub-fluid lines, wherein each of the plurality of main fluid lines in fluid communication with the three fluid openings of at least one of the plurality of valve receptacles via at least one of the plurality of sub-fluid lines.
Olmsted teach a fluid manifold (Figs. 1-3) comprising a cavity (14) having a plurality of valve receptacles (50), wherein each valve receptacle (50) is connected to a main fluid line (34, 36, 38, 40, or 42) via a plurality of sub-fluid lines (each respective sub-fluid line in between two vanes or in between a vane and the housing as is illustrated in Figure 3) that connect to at least three fluid openings (openings illustrated in Figure 3 towards the receptacle 50 that majority have an arrow, Column 2 lines 45-72) at the respective valve receptacle (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main fluid lines of Lemmon et al. with a plurality of sub-fluid lines as taught by Olmsted, for the advantage of directing fluid flow from a plurality of sides to reduce the imbalance of fluid forces on the valve and improve valve flow characteristics (Column 1 lines 11-16).
Claim(s) 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemmon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,096,880) in view of Olmsted (U.S. Patent No. 3,435,851), and further in view of DÃœRNER (Pub. No. US 2024/0035493).
Regarding claim 10, Lemmon et al. disclose an article (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a central cavity (11) having a plurality of annular cavity walls (Fig. 1) disposed around a central axis (Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of annular cavity walls (Fig. 1) are disposed at a first radial distance (Fig. 1) from the central axis; at least one valve receptacle (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) recessed within the central cavity (11), the at least one valve receptacle (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) comprising an annular receptacle wall (Fig. 1) disposed at a second radial distance (Fig. 1) from the central axis, the second radial distance being greater (Fig. 1) than the first radial distance; the at least one valve receptacle (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) further having a pair of annular sloped ridges (Fig. 1) connecting the annular receptacle wall (Fig. 1) of the at least one valve receptacle (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1) with at least one adjacent annular cavity wall (Fig. 1); a plurality of fluid openings (openings leading to main lines 16, 17, and 18) disposed in the annular receptacle wall (Fig. 1) of the at least one valve receptacle (16.1, 17.1, and 18.1), but lacks disclosure of each fluid opening having a teardrop cross-section oriented such that an axis of the teardrop cross-section is arranged in a direction parallel to the central axis of the central cavity; and a plurality of sub-fluid lines in fluid communication between the plurality of fluid openings and at least one main fluid line, wherein a number of the at least one fluid opening at each of the plurality of valve receptacles equals to a number of the plurality of sub-fluid lines at a corresponding valve receptacle.
Olmsted teach a fluid manifold (Figs. 1-3) comprising a cavity (14) having a plurality of valve receptacles (50), wherein each valve receptacle (50) is connected to a main fluid line (34, 36, 38, 40, or 42) via a plurality of sub-fluid lines (at 46, from the main fluid line which is at the first two arrows at the bottom of Figure 3 towards the beginning of each respective sub fluid line at an end of the respective vane 48, and then towards the end of each respective sub-fluid line at the end of the respective vane where just about each sub-fluid line has an arrow pointing towards the valve receptacle as is illustrated in Figure 3) that connect to a plurality of fluid openings (Fig. 3, Column 2 lines 45-72) at the respective valve receptacle (50), wherein the fluid openings have an albeit unknown shape (Column 3 lines 1-17), and a number of the at least one fluid opening (openings illustrated in Figure 3 towards the receptacle 50 that majority have an arrow) at each of the plurality of valve receptacles (50) equals to a number of the plurality of sub-fluid lines (each respective sub-fluid line in between two vanes or in between a vane and the housing as is illustrated in Figure 3) at a corresponding (Column 2 lines 45-72) valve receptacle (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main fluid lines of Lemmon et al. with a plurality of sub-fluid lines as taught by Olmsted, for the advantage of directing fluid flow from a plurality of sides to reduce the imbalance of fluid forces on the valve and improve valve flow characteristics (Column 1 lines 11-16).
In regards to the teardrop, DÃœRNER teaches a valve (Figs. 1-5) having openings (8 and 9) that have a teardrop shape (paragraph 35).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the shape of the openings of Lemmon et al. with a teardrop shape as taught by DÃœRNER, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 11, Olmsted (modified above) teach wherein at least one of the plurality of sub-fluid lines (Fig.3) is co-axial with the at least one main fluid line (34, 36, 38, 40, and 42).
Regarding claim 12, Olmsted (modified above) teach wherein at least one of the plurality of sub-fluid lines (Fig. 3) is disposed along a curved path (Fig. 3) between the at least one main fluid line (34, 36, 38, 40, and 42) and the central cavity (14).
Regarding claim 13, Lemmon et al. disclose the article (Figs. 1-5), wherein the at least one main fluid line (16, 17, or 18) is configured with a uniform cross-section geometry (Fig. 1) across a length of the at least one main fluid line (16, 17, or 18).
Regarding claim 14, Lemmon et al. disclose the article (Figs. 1-5), wherein the at least one main fluid line (16, 17, or 18) is configured with a cross-section geometry selected from the group consisting of: teardrop shape, circular (circular bore, Column 2 lines 4-17), ovular, and polygon.
Regarding claim 15, Lemmon et al. modified above disclose the article (Figs. 1-5), wherein a degree of slope of an edge of the teardrop cross-section (modified above) is compliant with a design-for-additive-manufacturing constraint (product by process).
The manifold produced by additive manufacturing does not limit the claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 16, Lemmon et al. disclose the article (Figs. 1-5), wherein a degree of slope of the pair of annular sloped ridges (Fig. 1) is compliant with a design-for-additive-manufacturing constraint (product by process).
The manifold produced by additive manufacturing does not limit the claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 17, Olmsted (modified above) teach wherein each of the plurality of fluid openings (Fig. 3) spans substantially all (Fig. 3) of the annular receptacle (50) wall between the annular sloped ridges.
Regarding claim 18, Lemmon et al. disclose the article (Figs. 1-5), further comprising a cartridge valve (20) configured to be inserted in and disposed (Fig. 1) within the central cavity (11).
Regarding claim 19, Lemmon et al. disclose the article (Figs. 1-5), wherein the cartridge valve (20) comprises a port (46) and the cartridge valve (20) and the central cavity (11) are further configured such that the port (46) of the cartridge valve (20) is aligned opposite (Fig. 1, Column 3 lines 41-66) the valve receptacle (16.1, 17.1, or 18.1) when the cartridge valve (20) is disposed within the central cavity (11).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights