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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 7/18/2025 has been received and considered.
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.
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) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumo et al. (U.S. 6,192,932) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. 8,322,367).
Izumo discloses a manifold body formed from a single piece of material for use with a fluid delivery system, comprising: a fluid inlet (17) defining a portion of a common fluid channel (14); a fluid outlet (16); a plunger housing (10, 11, 12) of an integrated valve; wherein the fluid inlet is configured to be received by a portion of a common fluid channel defined by an adjacent manifold body (as the inlet is an opening, it is capable of being coupled to another structure), wherein the plunger housing comprises an air passageway (23, 24) and a plunger arm receiving portion (the portion that receives 20, 21), the plunger arm receiving portion comprising a first plunger arm receiving portion configured to receive a plunger head and defines a port of the air passageway (the upper area closer to numeral 20), and a second plunger arm receiving portion defines a portion of the common fluid channel (the lower area in and around 21 in fig. 2), and wherein the air passageway and the common fluid channel are non-fluidly coupled relative to each other (fig. 2).
Izumo does not appear to disclose wherein the fluid inlet, the fluid outlet, and the plunger housing are formed of a single piece of material.
Harris teaches it was known in the art to have a similar manifold that is either formed from multiple components or a single component (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Izumo by having the body formed from a single piece of material as taught by Harris in order to reduce the number of connection components and possible leakage, be able to withstand high pressure (see abstract of Harris) and especially since it has been held that making a component integral which was one separable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, Izumo as modified further discloses wherein the second plunger arm receiving portion is configured to receive an elongated stem of a plunger within the common fluid channel (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Izumo as modified further discloses wherein the fluid outlet is configured to receive a plunger tip of the elongated stem of the plunger for blocking flow from the fluid outlet (fig. 2, see the received at 16).
Regarding claim 14, Izumo as modified further discloses wherein the plunger housing is configured to receive a solenoid valve (the housing is capable of receiving a solenoid, especially at the connection point where ports 23 and 24 are located and similar in location to where the applicant’s solenoid is connected to the plunger housing).
Regarding claim 15, Izumo as modified further discloses wherein the first plunger arm receiving portion defines an air fill space configured to receive air from the port of the air passageway (the space around 20).
Regarding claim 16, Izumo as modified further discloses wherein the plunger housing comprises an air inlet configured to couple the air passageway to an external air pressure port (23 and/or 24).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,305,767. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 recites a manifold assembly with first and second manifolds with each manifold having an inlet defining a portion of a common fluid channel, a fluid outlet, a plunger housing, the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and plunger housing formed from a single piece of material, an inlet received by a portion of the common channel of the second manifold, each plunger housing comprising an air passageway and plunger arm receiving portion and the air passageways of the at least first manifold and second manifold and common flow channel no-fluidly coupled relative to each other. Claim 1 of the ‘767 patent is seen to recite this structure, either explicitly or implicitly, via the method steps recited. In other words, claim 1 of the instant application is seen to be the apparatus equivalent to the method of claim 1 of the ‘767 patent.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,443,747. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although instant claim 11 recites a manifold assembly having an inlet defining a portion of a common fluid channel, a fluid outlet, a plunger housing, the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and plunger housing formed from a single piece of material, an inlet configured to be received by a portion of a common channel of a second manifold, the plunger housing comprising an air passageway and plunger arm receiving portion and the air passageway and common flow channel no-fluidly coupled relative to each other, the combination of claims 1-2 of the ‘747 patent similarly recite a manifold assembly having an inlet defining a portion of a common fluid channel, a fluid outlet, a plunger housing, the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and plunger housing formed from a single piece of material, an inlet configured to be received by a portion of a common channel of a second manifold, the plunger housing comprising an air passageway and plunger arm receiving portion and the air passageway and common flow channel no-fluidly coupled relative to each other. Claims 1-2 of the ‘747 patent recite additional features such as a plurality of outlets and a plurality of housings. Thus, it is seen that claim 11 of the instant application is encompassed by claims 1-2 of the ‘747 patent.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,092,251. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although instant claim 11 recites a manifold assembly having an inlet defining a portion of a common fluid channel, a fluid outlet, a plunger housing, the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and plunger housing formed from a single piece of material, an inlet configured to be received by a portion of a common channel of a second manifold, the plunger housing comprising an air passageway and plunger arm receiving portion and the air passageway and common flow channel no-fluidly coupled relative to each other, the combination of claim 1 of the ‘251 patent similarly recites a manifold assembly having an inlet defining a portion of a common fluid channel, a fluid outlet, a plunger housing, the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and plunger housing formed from a single piece of material, an inlet configured to be received by a portion of a common channel of a second manifold, the plunger housing comprising an air passageway and plunger arm receiving portion and the air passageway and common flow channel no-fluidly coupled relative to each other. Claim 1 of the ‘251 patent recites additional features such as a plurality of outlets and a plurality of housings. Thus, it is seen that claim 11 of the instant application is encompassed by claim 1 of the ‘251 patent.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,867,301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although instant claim 11 recites a manifold assembly having an inlet defining a portion of a common fluid channel, a fluid outlet, a plunger housing, the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and plunger housing formed from a single piece of material, an inlet configured to be received by a portion of a common channel of a second manifold, the plunger housing comprising an air passageway and plunger arm receiving portion and the air passageway and common flow channel no-fluidly coupled relative to each other, the combination of claim 1 of the ‘301 patent similarly recites a manifold assembly having an inlet defining a portion of a common fluid channel, a fluid outlet, a plunger housing, the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and plunger housing formed from a single piece of material, an inlet configured to be received by a portion of a common channel of a second manifold, the plunger housing comprising an air passageway and plunger arm receiving portion and the air passageway and common flow channel no-fluidly coupled relative to each other. Claim 1 of the ‘301 patent recites additional features such as a plurality of outlets and a plurality of housings. Thus, it is seen that claim 11 of the instant application is encompassed by claim 1 of the ‘301 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if the above double-patenting rejection is overcome.
Claims 2-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art as evidenced above is Izumo in view of Harris. However, Izumo does not disclose multiple manifolds (first and second manifolds) with the same claimed features that are then coupled together with the fluid inlet of the first manifold received by a portion of the common fluid channel defined by the second manifold. It is further not seen to be obvious to make such a modification as Izumo is already being modified by Harris to be formed from a single piece of material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (U.S. 10,746,406) discloses a valve assembly with individual housings coupled together and a portion of one of the housings inserted into a portion of an adjacent housing. However, the earliest effective filing date for Smith is after the earliest effective filing date for the instant application.
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