DETAILED ACTION
Following applicant’s amendment filed 8/20/2026, claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-22 are pending with claims 7-9, 11-13, and 15-18 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-6 and 19-22 are treated on their merits.
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 § 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzei (US Patent 6,730,214) in view of Kern, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,000,418).
Regarding Claim 1, Mazzei discloses a gas manifold comprising: a body 25 comprising a top section (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below) and a bottom section (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below), the top section comprising a top surface (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below), and the bottom section comprising a bottom surface (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below); a channel 61 spanning along an axis within the body and between the top section and an opening in the bottom surface (as shown in Figure 2); a first conduit 24 (as shown in Figure 1) extending from the top surface (coupled to the upstream end of body 25) and fluidly coupled to the channel; a second conduit 69 (as shown in Figure 1) extending substantially radially from the axis (as shown in Figure 1) and fluidly coupled to the channel; and a flow regulator (straightening vanes 72) within the bottom section, the flow regulator configured to change a flow direction of gas received from the first conduit and gas received from the second conduit (the straightening vanes are configured to redirect a flow from the first and second conduits as shown in Figure 2; it is noted that the device is at least capable of being used to handle gas received from both the first conduit and the second conduit and it is further noted that recitations of particular fluids handled by an apparatus in an apparatus claim are not accorded patentable weight as per MPEP 2115).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mazzei does not disclose a third conduit extending substantially radially from the axis and fluidly coupled to the channel.
Kern teaches a fluid mixing system (abstract) and further teaches a third conduit 39 (as best shown in Figure 3; the manifold includes a first conduit 36, a second conduit 39 and a third conduit 39) extending substantially radially from an axis 33 and fluidly coupled to a main channel 37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Mazzei to include a third conduit radially coupled to the channel as taught by Kern for the purpose of allowing a user to add a separate fluid to the system (as taught by Kern; col. 4, lines 41-47). It is noted that in the proposed modification of Mazzei in view of Kern the flow regulator (straightening vanes 72 disclosed by Mazzei) are configured to change a flow direction of gas received from the first conduit, gas received from the second conduit, and gas received from the third conduit because the straightening vanes are provided downstream of the injection ports in the manner disclosed by Mazzei (including because Kern teaches the injection ports are provided at the same axial locations).
Regarding Claim 2, Mazzei further discloses the flow regulator 72 comprises a plurality of fins (the straightening vanes 72 form a plurality of fins) extending inward from an interior wall of the channel (as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Mazzei further discloses each fin 72 of the plurality of fins comprises a first section and a second section (first section of the fin at the lower end as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above; the second section of the fin at the upper end as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above), wherein the first section comprises an interior angled surface at an angle relative to the axis (as shown by the dotted line in the annotated Figure 2 above; the first section includes a surface angled relative to the axis), and wherein the second section comprises an interior parallel surface substantially parallel to the axis (as shown by the dotted line in the annotated Figure 2 above; the second section includes a surface substantially parallel to the axis), wherein the angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees or between about 15 degrees and about 45 degrees (the angle defined between the surface of the first section and the axis is at least greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 4, although Mazzei discloses a height of the first section to be much less than a height of the second section (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above), Mazzei is silent on the particular dimensions and therefore does not disclose a ratio of height of the first section relative to a height of the second section is between about 1:20 and about 1:10.
However, the selection of the particular dimensions of the fins is seen as an obvious matter of engineering design choice. Furthermore, such a modification requires a mere change in size/proportion and it has been generally held that mere changes in size/proportion are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Mazzei such that the heights of the sections of the fins are any desired ratio, including a ratio of height of the first section relative to a height of the second section between about 1:20 and about 1:10, for the purpose of providing a desired level of flow straightening.
Regarding Claim 5, Mazzei does not disclose the plurality of fins comprises between about 9 and about 18.
However, the selection of the particular number of fins is an obvious matter of design choice. Furthermore, providing additional fins requires a mere duplication of parts and it has been generally held that a mere duplication of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Mazzei such that the device includes any number of fins, including between about 9 and about 18, for the purpose of providing a desired level of mixing.
Regarding Claim 6, Mazzei further discloses the plurality of fins 72 are integrally formed within the body 25 (as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Mazzei discloses an assembly comprising: a gas manifold comprising: a body 25 comprising a top section (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above) and a bottom section (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above), the top section comprising a top surface (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above), and the bottom section comprising a bottom surface (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above); a channel 61 spanning along an axis within the body and between the top section and an opening in the bottom surface (as shown in Figure 2); a first conduit 24 (as shown in Figure 1) extending from the top surface (coupled to the upstream end of body 25) and fluidly coupled to the channel; a second conduit 69 (as shown in Figure 1) extending substantially radially from the axis (as shown in Figure 1) and fluidly coupled to the channel; and a flow regulator (straightening vanes 72) within the bottom section, the flow regulator configured to change a flow direction of gas received from the first conduit and gas received from the second conduit (the straightening vanes are configured to redirect a flow from the first and second conduits as shown in Figure 2; it is noted that the device is at least capable of being used to handle gas received from both the first conduit and the second conduit and it is further noted that recitations of particular fluids handled by an apparatus in an apparatus claim are not accorded patentable weight as per MPEP 2115); and a gas distribution device (conduit 30 provides a distribution device at least capable of handling a gas) fluidly coupled to the gas manifold (gas manifold having body 25).
Mazzei does not disclose a third conduit extending substantially radially from the axis and fluidly coupled to the channel.
Kern teaches a fluid mixing system (abstract) and further teaches a third conduit 39 (as best shown in Figure 3; the manifold includes a first conduit 36, a second conduit 39 and a third conduit 39) extending substantially radially from an axis 33 and fluidly coupled to a main channel 37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Mazzei to include a third conduit radially coupled to the channel as taught by Kern for the purpose of allowing a user to add a separate fluid to the system (as taught by Kern; col. 4, lines 41-47). It is noted that in the proposed modification of Mazzei in view of Kern the flow regulator (straightening vanes 72 disclosed by Mazzei) are configured to change a flow direction of gas received from the first conduit, gas received from the second conduit, and gas received from the third conduit because the straightening vanes are provided downstream of the injection ports in the manner disclosed by Mazzei (including because Kern teaches the injection ports are provided at the same axial locations).
Regarding Claim 20, Mazzei discloses a reactor system (including reactor 40) comprising: a reaction chamber (chamber within 40); a gas distribution device (conduit 30 provides a distribution device capable of handling a gas) configured to deliver gas to an interior of the reaction chamber (capable of delivering a gas to an interior of the reaction chamber within 40); and a gas manifold (including body 25) fluidly coupled to the gas distribution device 30, the gas manifold comprising: a body 25 comprising a top section (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above) and a bottom section (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above), the top section comprising a top surface (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above), and the bottom section comprising a bottom surface (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above); a channel 61 spanning along an axis within the body and between the top section and an opening in the bottom surface (as shown in Figure 2); a first conduit 24 (as shown in Figure 1) extending from the top surface (coupled to the upstream end of body 25) and fluidly coupled to the channel; a second conduit 69 (as shown in Figure 1) extending substantially radially from the axis (as shown in Figure 1) and fluidly coupled to the channel; and a flow regulator (straightening vanes 72) within the bottom section, the flow regulator configured to change a flow direction of gas received from the first conduit and gas received from the second conduit (the straightening vanes are configured to redirect a flow from the first and second conduits as shown in Figure 2; it is noted that the device is at least capable of being used to handle gas received from both the first conduit and the second conduit and it is further noted that recitations of particular fluids handled by an apparatus in an apparatus claim are not accorded patentable weight as per MPEP 2115).
Mazzei does not disclose a third conduit extending substantially radially from the axis and fluidly coupled to the channel.
Kern teaches a fluid mixing system (abstract) and further teaches a third conduit 39 (as best shown in Figure 3; the manifold includes a first conduit 36, a second conduit 39 and a third conduit 39) extending substantially radially from an axis 33 and fluidly coupled to a main channel 37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Mazzei to include a third conduit radially coupled to the channel as taught by Kern for the purpose of allowing a user to add a separate fluid to the system (as taught by Kern; col. 4, lines 41-47). It is noted that in the proposed modification of Mazzei in view of Kern the flow regulator (straightening vanes 72 disclosed by Mazzei) are configured to change a flow direction of gas received from the first conduit, gas received from the second conduit, and gas received from the third conduit because the straightening vanes are provided downstream of the injection ports in the manner disclosed by Mazzei (including because Kern teaches the injection ports are provided at the same axial locations).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Mazzei further discloses the flow regulator 72 comprises a plurality of fins (the straightening vanes 72 form a plurality of fins) extending inward from an interior wall of the channel (as shown in Figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 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. Specifically, applicant argues that none of the previously applied art teaches the new limitations of a third conduit extending substantially radially from the axis and fluidly coupled to the channel. However, newly applied Kern teaches a third conduit 39 (as best shown in Figure 3; the manifold includes a first conduit 36, a second conduit 39 and a third conduit 39) extending substantially radially from an axis 33 and fluidly coupled to a main channel 37. Furthermore, Kern teaches a third conduit (i.e. second injection port) allows for the use of an additional source of fluid (col. 4, lines 41-47).
Conclusion
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights