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 Species D, Figure 7 in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the embodiment of figure 4 is not mutually exclusive from the embodiment shown in figures 7-13. This has been found persuasive and the embodiments of figures 4-6 (Species A-C) have been removed from the requirement. However, figures 7-13 do have mutually exclusive features. Applicant has elected Species D, figure 7. Claim 10 recites features not found in figure 7, namely the sensor, which is found in the non-elected species of figures 10-12. Claim 11 recites features not found in figure 7, namely the second plug, which is found in the non-elected species of figures 8 and 11. As such, and in order to maintain compact prosecution, examination will proceed with the election of Species D, figure 7, and claims 10-11 are withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 1/31/2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The status identifier of claims 10-11 should be “(Withdrawn)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13, “a flow directing surface shape” should be --the flow directing surface shape-- as claim 1, lines 15-16 already introduced “a flow directing surface shape”.
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 16-17 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 16 recites a set of releasable plugs with “a variety of flow direction surface shapes”. This limitation is broad to the point of being indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. It is unclear what types of devices/shapes would be considered “a variety”.
Claim 17 is rejected for reasoning similar to that of claim 16 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mold-Masters Limited (EP0523549)(cited by the applicant in the IDS dated 1/31/2025, hereinafter “Mold Masters”).
Mold Masters discloses a fluid distributor unit comprising: a flow conduit (10, 66) which surrounds a connecting passage (80, 76, 112) extending in a longitudinal direction therethrough (fig. 3); a releasable plug (82); and a releasable locking element (102), wherein the fluid conduit comprises at least three ports (98, 100 on the left side in fig. 3, and 100 on the right side in fig. 3), and in fluid communication with the connecting passage, wherein at least two of the ports extend transversely to the connecting passage from the flow conduit (see fig. 3, 100 and 100), wherein the flow conduit is open at one end of the connecting passage in the longitudinal direction so that the one end of the connecting passage forms an opening in the flow conduit (the opening so that the plug 82 can be inserted), wherein the releasable plug is inserted into the opening of the flow conduit to close the opening (see the inserted position shown in figs. 2-3), wherein the releasable plug has an inner surface with a smooth flow directing surface shape which at least partially projects into the connecting passage to direct fluid flow with reduced turbulence (see fig. 3, notice the upward curving portion of the plug that leads to a pointed end above the lead line for numeral 82b), and wherein the releasable locking element is configured to engage with and extend through aligned holes in the releasable plug and in the flow conduit (104, 106) to thereby hold the releasable plug locked in place in the opening of the flow conduit.
Regarding claim 13, Mold Masters discloses a method comprising: adapting the fluid distributor unit according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) to a given type of fluid and to a predetermined pattern of flow rates through the ports of the fluid distributor unit (necessarily adapted in order to operate properly for the fluid through the assembly and the predetermined pattern of flow rates for the fluid, and as the structure is the same as the applicant’s device and thus adapted in the same manner), providing the releasable plug with a flow directing surface shape adapted to the given type of fluid and the predetermined pattern of flow rates to cause a minimal pressure drop in the flow distributor unit (see fig. 3, notice the upward curving portion of the plug that leads to a pointed end above the lead line for numeral 82b, which is the same structure as the applicant’s device and thus intended to minimize pressure drop in the same manner), and inserting the releasable plug into the opening and bringing the locking element to the locking position holding the releasable plug locked in place in the opening of the flow conduit (in the installed position shown in figs. 2-3).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mold Masters in view of Loewe (U.S. 2008/0078464).
Mold Masters discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the flow conduit being an injection molded part.
To the extent that applicant recites the parts being injection molded, 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 flow conduit to be capable of being injection molded.
Loewe teaches it was known in the art to have a similar assembly with an conduit that is made of a material that is able to be injection molded (para. 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mold Masters by having the conduit be made of a material that is able to be injection molded as taught by Loewe in order to have the conduit be made of a material and process that is relatively inexpensive and with a high output rate.
Claim(s) 17, as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mold Masters in view of Gallaher (U.S. 742,409).
Mold Masters discloses a fluid distribution assembly comprising: the fluid distributer unit according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Mold Masters does not appear to disclose a set of exchange release plugs including releasable plugs with a variety of flow direction surface shapes.
Gallaher teaches it was known in the art to have a similar plug with a different flow direction surface shape (see “n” and the shape at “r” which is different than the shape of the protruding portion in Mold Masters).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mold Masters by having a different plug (and thus, a set of exchange plugs with a variety of flow direction surface shapes) as taught by Gallaher in order to have different options for the flow direction surface shape for a user if so desired for a particular use and desired fluid flow characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 12, 14-15, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art is not seen to further include the limitations of claim 3, nor is it seen to be obvious to modify a reference such as Mold Masters in order to arrive at claim 3. While Mold Masters is seen to have a cu-shaped plug and outer surface opposite the inner surface with a recess (see the area at 110 in fig. 3) and an outer rim (the rim that defines the recess), the outer rim does not have two diametrically opposite holes with the flow conduit comprising two diametrically opposite holes that are aligned with the holes of the outer rim. Rather, there is a single hole in each of the plug and flow conduit for the locking element. Modifying Mold Masters to meet claim 3 would require moving the openings for the flow conduit to another structure, element 12 in fig. 3, which is not seen to be obvious as this could negatively affect the overall assembly of the device and Mold Masters functions properly as is.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art is not seen to further disclose or teach the additional method steps of simulating the flow through the fluid distributor unit and varying the flow directing shape of the plug and iteratively repeating the flow simulation to determine an optimized flow directing surface shape which minimizes pressure drop and forming the plug with the optimized flow directing shape. Adriany et al. (U.S. 10,267,515) discloses using simulations to design angles and subdivisions for a liquid oxidizer passage and also uses an iterative CFD flow simulation; however, Adriany is not for varying the shape of a lug to determine an optimized flow directing surface to minimize pressure drop in a fluid distributor unit, nor does Adriany simulate flow for a given type of fluid and predetermined flow rate patterns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parker (U.S. 2,327,449) discloses a plug with a different flow direction surface shape.
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
Prosecution Insights