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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 9 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 20 May 2026.
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 and 4 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 pump" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the pump” will be interpreted as relating to the pump axis.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
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) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al (WO 2024002153; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 6 Jan 2026 with references taken from Applicant provided English Machine Translation of 6 Jan 2026) in view of Pawellek (US 20220333597).
Regarding Claim 1, Bao et al disclose a manifold (Figures generally 1000 and 2000). The manifold comprising:
a housing (10 generally; Figure 6) having a plurality of flow paths (Figures 7-8 between and among the ports) and an input port (from fluid connections to 161 or 11 shown in Figure 13) that receives a fluid flowing into the flow paths (to 132 of Figure 10),
a pump (30) in the housing (Figure 10 within 10) and configured to send the fluid flowing in from the input port to the flow paths (from 132; Figure 10),
a flow path switching valve (21) in the housing (Figure 10 within 10) and configured to control a flow of the fluid flowing through the flow paths (Figure 10), and
a control unit (43, 35 and 42 together) that is integrated with the housing (Figure 5 and closed shown in Figure 2), wherein
the pump (30) includes a pump body (310) that rotates about a pump axis (along 37),
the flow path switching valve (21) includes a valve body (211) that rotates about a valve axis along 212),
the valve axis and the pump are parallel to each other (Figure 10; where the axis along 37 of the pump 30 and the axis along 212 and 211 of the valve 21 are parallel to each other),
the control unit (43, 35 and 42 together) includes one control case (44) that contains a pump drive unit (41) configured to drive and rotate the body about the pump axis (¶ 27), a valve drive unit (45) configured to rotationally drive the valve body about the valve axis (¶ 27), and a control board (43) configured to control operations of the pump drive unit and the valve drive unit (¶ 48), and
the pump body is in the housing (within 10; Figure 6) but outside of the control case (outside 44; Figure 4),
but fails to expressly disclose where the pump is a screw pump, the screw pump includes a screw body that rotates about a pump axis.
Pawellek teaches a fluid circuit (¶ 6) with a pump that is a screw pump (Figure 1; ¶ 20), the screw pump (Figure 1; ¶ 20) includes a screw body (2a) that rotates about a pump axis (the axis along 32 of Figure 1).
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 pump of Bao et al with the screw pump as taught by Pawellek for the advantage of delivering a more uniform delivery behavior when compared to impeller pumps, as taught by Pawellek (¶ 20).
Regarding Claim 4, Bao et al disclose where the control board (43) includes a pump drive circuit that is configured to supply power from a power supply to the pump drive unit (via 42 and 35; ¶ 45), and a valve drive circuit configured to supply power from the power supply to the valve drive unit (via 42 and 21; ¶ 46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that in Bao et al there is no distinction between the housing and the control case and therefore Bao et al does not disclose “the screw body is in the housing but outside of the control case” as recited in amended Claim 1.
However as discussed above, Bao et al discloses a housing (10) and a control case (44) which are separate and distinct elements and therefore Bao et al disclose the pump body is in the housing (within 10; Figure 6) but outside of the control case (outside 44; Figure 4).
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that modifying the manifold of Bao et al to incorporate the teachings of Pawellek would be contrary to the intended purpose of Bao et al since incorporating a screw pump would increase pumping distance and therefore increase pumping flow resistance. However, providing a screw pump as taught by Pawellek instead of an impeller pump would lower pressure fluctuations and deliver a more uniform delivery behavior when compared to impeller pumps, as taught by Pawellek (¶ 20). This would further the intended purpose of Bao et al by reducing pumping flow resistance. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that modifying the manifold of Bao et al to incorporate the teachings of Pawellek would change the principle of operation of Bao et al since incorporating a screw pump would increase pumping distance and therefore increase pumping flow resistance. However, providing a screw pump as taught by Pawellek instead of an impeller pump would lower pressure fluctuations and deliver a more uniform delivery behavior when compared to impeller pumps, as taught by Pawellek (¶ 20). This would further the intended purpose of Bao et al by reducing pumping flow resistance. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that modifying the manifold of Bao et al to incorporate the teachings of Pawellek would render Bao et al unsuitable for it’s intended purpose since incorporating a screw pump would increase pumping distance and therefore increase pumping flow resistance. However, providing a screw pump as taught by Pawellek instead of an impeller pump would lower pressure fluctuations and deliver a more uniform delivery behavior when compared to impeller pumps, as taught by Pawellek (¶ 20). This would further the intended purpose of Bao et al by reducing pumping flow resistance. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
