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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 1/30/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite wherein the plurality of connection blocks and conduits are not suspended from the crane system has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection over Knight in view of Kibler have not been found persuasive. A new interpretation of Knight in view of Kibler as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including wherein the plurality of connection blocks and conduits are not suspended from the crane system.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US 4,391,297) in view of Kibler et al. (US 10,466,719, hereafter “Kibler”).
Regarding claim 1, Knight discloses a pump manifold system (Figs. 1-4), comprising: a plurality of connection blocks (98 and 50, 52, 54); a plurality of conduits (34-40) between the plurality of connection blocks; and a crane system (24) comprising: a base (32); a column (30) coupled to the base, wherein the column is supported above the plurality of connection blocks and conduits such that the plurality of connection blocks and conduits extend underneath the column (as shown in Fig. 3, see how at least a portion of the plurality of connection blocks and conduits extend underneath 30 and/or the plurality of connection blocks and conduits extend below at least a portion of 30), and wherein the plurality of connection blocks and conduits are not suspended from the crane system (as shown in Fig. 4, see how at least a portion of the plurality of connection blocks at 54 are not suspended from 24); and a rail (the rail including at least 60, 62) coupled to the column that extends separate from and relative to a first side of at least one of the conduits or connection blocks (as shown best in Fig. 3, see how the rail defined above extends in the direction that is separate from and is relative to a first side of at least one of the conduits) (Figs. 1-3), but fails to disclose a plurality of legs.
Kibler teaches wherein a column (102) that is supported above the plurality of connection blocks and conduits by a plurality of legs (see Exhibit A) such that the plurality of connection blocks and conduits extend through the plurality of legs and underneath the column. (Figs. 4 and 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the manifold system of Knight to include a plurality of legs as taught by Kibler in order to provide additional stability when the system is mounted.
Exhibit A
Regarding claim 2, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 1, wherein the column is rotatably fixed to the base such that the column does not rotate relative to the base. (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding claim 3, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the column is pivotably coupled to the base such that the column can pivot relative to the base.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the column to be pivotably coupled to the base such that the column can pivot relative to the base since applicant has not disclosed that having the column to be pivotably coupled to the base such that the column can pivot relative to the base solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the column to be pivotably coupled to the base such that the column can pivot relative to the base, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, in para. [0154] of the specification, Applicant merely states:
The column 2027 can be rotatable relative to the base 2026, or the column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026. The column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026 and pivotably coupled to the base 2026 such that the column 2027 does not rotate relative to the base 2026 in the X-Y plane and the column 2027 can pivot relative to the base 2026 in the X-Z plane or the Y-Z plane between the extended position and the retracted position. In one embodiment, which can be combined with other embodiments, the column 2027 is rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026, and the articulation arm device 2028 (or the rail of the jib crane) is rotatable relative to the column 2027.
Regarding claim 4, Knight further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the column is rotatable relative to the base such that the column rotates relative to the base.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the column to be rotatable relative to the base such that the column rotates relative to the base since applicant has not disclosed that having the column to be rotatable relative to the base such that the column rotates relative to the base solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the column to be rotatable relative to the base such that the column rotates relative to the base, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, in para. [0154] of the specification, Applicant merely states:
The column 2027 can be rotatable relative to the base 2026, or the column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026. The column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026 and pivotably coupled to the base 2026 such that the column 2027 does not rotate relative to the base 2026 in the X-Y plane and the column 2027 can pivot relative to the base 2026 in the X-Z plane or the Y-Z plane between the extended position and the retracted position. In one embodiment, which can be combined with other embodiments, the column 2027 is rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026, and the articulation arm device 2028 (or the rail of the jib crane) is rotatable relative to the column 2027.
Regarding claim 5, Knight further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 4, wherein the column is coupled to a base receptacle (72) that is coupled to a mount plate (82), and wherein the mount plate is rotatably coupled to a base plate of the base. (Fig. 1-6)
Regarding claim 6, Knight further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the column is configured to be removably coupled to and from the base receptacle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the column to be removably coupled to and from the base receptacle since separating parts that were once integral involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide unique parts that may be easily replaced in the event that they may become damaged without having to replace a larger portion of the system.
Regarding claim 7, Knight further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 6, wherein the base receptacle is a female receptacle (72 is a female receptacle), and wherein a bottom end of the column is a male insert that is received in the female receptacle. (for the purposes of this claim, the column is being interpreted as the piston portion of 72)
Regarding claim 8, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 1, wherein the crane system further comprises a mount frame (60/66) extending above the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks, and wherein a base plate (the upper plate portion of 32 with reference to Fig. 3) of the base is coupled to the mount frame.
Regarding claim 9, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 8, wherein the mount frame is coupled to the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks and comprises a plurality of legs (94) configured to support the base. (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding claim 10, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 8, wherein the mount frame comprises a plurality of legs (94) configured to support the base. (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding claim 11, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 1, wherein the base is coupled to the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks. (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding claim 12, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 1, wherein the base is positioned directly above the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks. (Figs. 1-4; at least a portion of the base is positioned above the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks)
Regarding claim 13, Knight discloses a pump manifold system (Figs. 1-4), comprising: a plurality of connection blocks (98 and 50, 52, 54); a plurality of conduits (34-40) between the plurality of connection blocks; and a crane (24) comprising: a column (30); and a rail (the rail including at least 60, 62) coupled to the column, wherein the column is positioned above at least one of the conduits or connection blocks such that the at least one conduit or connection block extends underneath the column (Figs. 1-4; at least a portion of the column is positioned above the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks and in Fig. 3, specifically, at least a portion of the at least one conduit or connection block extends underneath the column), wherein the plurality of connection blocks and conduits are not suspended from the crane system (as shown in Fig. 4, see how at least a portion of the plurality of connection blocks at 54 are not suspended from 24), and wherein the rail extends separate from and relative to a first side of the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks (as shown best in Fig. 3, see how the rail defined above extends in the direction that is separate from and is relative to a first side of at least one of the conduits) (Figs. 1-3), but fails to disclose a plurality of legs.
Kibler teaches wherein a column (102) is positioned above at least one of the conduits or connection blocks by a plurality of legs (see Exhibit A) such that the at least one conduit or connection block extends through the plurality of legs and underneath the column. (Figs. 4 and 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the manifold system of Knight to include a plurality of legs as taught by Kibler in order to provide additional stability when the system is mounted.
Regarding claim 14, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 13, wherein the column is rotatably fixed such that the column does not rotate relative to the conduits or connection blocks. (Figs. 1-3)
Regarding claim 15, Knight further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the column is rotatable such that the column rotates relative to the conduits or connection blocks.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the column to be rotatable relative to the conduits or connection blocks such that the column rotates relative to the base since applicant has not disclosed that having the column to be rotatable relative to the base such that the column rotates relative to the conduits or connection blocks solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the column to be rotatable relative to the base such that the conduits or connection blocks rotates relative to the base, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, in para. [0154] of the specification, Applicant merely states:
The column 2027 can be rotatable relative to the base 2026, or the column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026. The column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026 and pivotably coupled to the base 2026 such that the column 2027 does not rotate relative to the base 2026 in the X-Y plane and the column 2027 can pivot relative to the base 2026 in the X-Z plane or the Y-Z plane between the extended position and the retracted position. In one embodiment, which can be combined with other embodiments, the column 2027 is rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026, and the articulation arm device 2028 (or the rail of the jib crane) is rotatable relative to the column 2027.
Regarding claim 16, Knight further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 15, and wherein the base plate is positioned above the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks, but fails to disclose wherein the column is rotatably coupled to a base plate of the crane.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the column to be rotatable relative to the base plate of the crane such that the column rotates relative to the base since applicant has not disclosed that having the column to be rotatable relative to the base plate of the crane such that the column rotates relative to the base solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the column to be rotatable relative to the base plate of the crane such that the column rotates relative to the base, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, in para. [0154] of the specification, Applicant merely states:
The column 2027 can be rotatable relative to the base 2026, or the column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026. The column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026 and pivotably coupled to the base 2026 such that the column 2027 does not rotate relative to the base 2026 in the X-Y plane and the column 2027 can pivot relative to the base 2026 in the X-Z plane or the Y-Z plane between the extended position and the retracted position. In one embodiment, which can be combined with other embodiments, the column 2027 is rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026, and the articulation arm device 2028 (or the rail of the jib crane) is rotatable relative to the column 2027.
Regarding claim 17, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 13, wherein the crane further comprises a mount frame (60/66) extending above the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks, and wherein the mount frame comprises a plurality of legs (94) configured to support the column. (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding claim 18, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 17, wherein the plurality of legs extend on opposite sides of the at least one of the conduits or connection blocks. (Figs. 1-4)
Regarding claim 19, Knight further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 18, wherein the column is rotatably coupled to the mount frame such that the column rotates relative to the mount frame.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the column to be rotatably coupled to the mount frame such that the column rotates relative to the mount frame since applicant has not disclosed that having the column to be rotatably coupled to the mount frame such that the column rotates relative to the mount frame solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the column to be rotatable relative to the base plate of the crane such that the column rotates relative to the base, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, in para. [0154] of the specification, Applicant merely states:
The column 2027 can be rotatable relative to the base 2026, or the column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026. The column 2027 can be rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026 and pivotably coupled to the base 2026 such that the column 2027 does not rotate relative to the base 2026 in the X-Y plane and the column 2027 can pivot relative to the base 2026 in the X-Z plane or the Y-Z plane between the extended position and the retracted position. In one embodiment, which can be combined with other embodiments, the column 2027 is rotatably fixed relative to the base 2026, and the articulation arm device 2028 (or the rail of the jib crane) is rotatable relative to the column 2027.
Regarding claim 20, Knight in view of Kibler further discloses the pump manifold system of claim 13, further comprising a trolley (26, 28) movable along the rail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights