DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment dated 12/5/2025. Claim 9 is currently amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 1-14 are pending.
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 statements filed 7/30/2025 and 12/5/2025 are acknowledged and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/23/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 contains the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the control system is configured cause” in line 3. It appears that this limitation should be “the control system is configured to cause”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 12 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 3 recites the limitation “the valve limiter is optionally in a threaded engagement with the actuator” in line 3. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the actuator optionally being configured as one of a linear stepper motor or a proportional solenoid” in lines 3-4. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “optionally the air chamber is configured to receive pressurized air to overcome a bias of the return spring during an on cycle of the fluid delivery manifold to thereby cause the valve plunger to move to the open position by a predetermined distance based on the position of the valve limiter, optionally the valve limiter is arranged within coils of the return spring” in lines 4-7. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the motive fluid" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “optionally where the pressure sensor is located on a motive fluid pump fluidly coupled to the fluid inlet, optionally further comprising another pressure sensor fluidly coupled to the fluid outlet, wherein the control system is communicatively coupled to the another pressure sensor and configured to cause the position of the valve limiter to be adjusted at least based on pressure sensor data of the another pressure sensor” in lines 4-8. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “optionally wherein the fluid delivery manifold, the control system, and at least a portion of each of the at least one chemical supplies are mounted on a common structure” in lines 11-13. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “optionally an inlet port of the fluid rail is fluidly coupled between a motive fluid source and the plurality of fluid rail outlet ports” in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soland et al. (US 4461450).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Soland et al. reference discloses a fluid delivery manifold (10) for use with a fluid delivery system, the fluid delivery manifold comprising:
a fluid passageway comprising a fluid inlet (26) and a fluid outlet (30);
at least one integrated valve, each integrated valve comprising a plunger housing (it is considered that the combination of 14, 110 and 120 form a plunger housing), the plunger housing comprising an air chamber (122) and configured to receive a valve limiter within an interior thereof, wherein the fluid inlet, the fluid outlet, and the plunger housing are integrally-constructed (it is considered that the combination of components 14, 110 and 120 are integrally-constructed since the combination of components are secured relative to each other to form an integral unit that is constructed by assembling the components together);
a valve plunger (56, 58) arranged in the plunger housing configured to block a valve orifice (at 48 as depicted in figure 2) of the fluid outlet in a closed position of the valve plunger to prevent passage of fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice, and to open the valve orifice in an open position of the valve plunger to permit the passage of the fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet (see col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 2); and
an actuator assembly (it is considered that the components within the housing 200 constitutes an actuator assembly that includes the motor and the assembly 218) coupled to each integrated valve of the at least one integrated valve, each actuator assembly comprising an actuator (considered the motor) and the valve limiter (182),
wherein the actuator is configured to adjust a position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice based on a distance of movement of the valve plunger to the open position (see col. 5, lines 4-10 and col. 5, lines 23-27), and
wherein the air chamber and the fluid passageway are non-fluidly coupled relative to each other (it is considered that the sealing rings 118 seal the chamber 122 from the fluid passageway).
In regards to claim 2, the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the valve plunger (56, 58) comprises a parabolic tip (see figure 2 for the tip of the valve plunger 58 being parabolic).
In regards to claim 3, the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the actuator is configured for linearly adjusting the valve limiter (it is considered that the operation of the actuator to translate the valve limiter 182 in order to adjust the permitted opening amount of the valve plunger relative to the valve orifice at 48; see at least col. 5, lines 23-27) to cause a linear change in the effective valve orifice area, wherein the valve limiter is optionally in a threaded engagement with the actuator (via the threaded interaction at 212 as depicted in figure 1), the actuator optionally being configured as one of a linear stepper motor or a proportional solenoid (see col. 5, lines 29-34 for the actuator being a piston-type stepping actuator).
In regards to claim 5, the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the position of the valve limiter is controlled by a control system (see col. 5, lines 55-68 for the control of the fluid flow through the manifold based on a control system) of the integrated into an assembly including the fluid delivery manifold (it is considered that the control system is integrated into an assembly that includes the fluid delivery manifold 10 since the operation of the control system is able to control the operation of the fluid delivery manifold).
In regards to claim 6, the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the control system is configured to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure, and based on the selected outlet pressure, the control system is configured cause the actuator assembly to adjust the position of the valve limiter to reach a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure of the motive fluid when the valve plunger is in the open position (see col. 5, lines 55-68 for the operation of the fluid delivery manifold 10 by the control system).
In regards to claim 13, the Soland et al. reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using a fluid delivery manifold (10) for use with a fluid delivery system (it is considered that the connections to the inlet 26 and the outlet 30 in combination with the fluid delivery manifold 10 constitutes a fluid delivery system) wherein:
the fluid delivery manifold of claim 1 (see claim 1 above) is used to adjust the position of the valve limiter (182); and
causing the valve plunger (56, 58) to be moved to the open position in which the valve plunger contacts the valve limiter (182) to thereby define the effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice such that the fluid is dispensed from the fluid outlet at a flow rate based on the effective valve orifice area (see at least col. 5, lines 23-27 and col. 5, lines 55-68).
In regards to claim 14, the Soland et al. reference discloses using a control system (see at least col. 5, lines 55-68) integrated (it is considered that the control system is integrated into an assembly that includes the fluid delivery manifold 10 since the operation of the control system is able to control the operation of the fluid delivery manifold) into an assembly including the fluid delivery manifold to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure, and wherein the flow rate of the fluid dispensed from the fluid outlet corresponds to the selected outlet pressure (see at least col. 5, lines 55-68).
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 non-obviousness.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soland et al. (US 4461450) in view of Kajitani et al. (US 7117886).
Claim(s) 7 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 7, the Soland et al. reference does not disclose a pressure sensor fluidly coupled to the fluid delivery system, wherein the control system is communicatively coupled to the pressure sensor and configured to cause the position of the valve limiter to be adjusted at least based on pressure sensor data, optionally where the pressure sensor is located on a motive fluid pump fluidly coupled to the fluid inlet, optionally further comprising another pressure sensor fluidly coupled to the fluid outlet, wherein the control system is communicatively coupled to the another pressure sensor and configured to cause the position of the valve limiter to be adjusted at least based on pressure sensor data of the another pressure sensor.
However, the Kajitani et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a movable valve member (15, 20, 32) having a valve piston (32) within an air chamber (39) and wherein a valve limiter (41) is connected to an actuator (45) to limit the movement of the valve member. Further, the Kajitani et al. reference teaches a pressure sensor (60) sends a signal to a controller (63) to control the actuator controller (64) in order to set the appropriate opening of the valve member (see col. 7, lines 15-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a pressure sensor as taught by the Kajitani et al. in the fluid delivery system of the Soland et al. reference in order to set the appropriate opening of the valve plunger to control the desired fluid flow from the fluid delivery manifold.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 20170198822) in view of Soland et al. (US 4461450).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 9 and 12 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Harris et al. reference discloses a fluid delivery manifold (900) for use with a fluid delivery system, the fluid delivery manifold comprising:
a fluid passageway comprising a fluid inlet (907) and a fluid outlet (930);
at least one integrated valve (902), each integrated valve comprising a plunger housing (934, 966), the plunger housing comprising an air chamber (969), wherein the fluid inlet, the fluid outlet, and the plunger housing are integrally-constructed (see figure 13);
a valve plunger (918) arranged in the plunger housing configured to block a valve orifice (964) of the fluid outlet in a closed position of the valve plunger to prevent passage of fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice, and to open the valve orifice in an open position of the valve plunger to permit the passage of the fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet (see at least paragraph [0092]); and
wherein the air chamber and the fluid passageway are non-fluidly coupled relative to each other (it is considered that the sealing rings 942 on the stem of the valve plunger 918 would provide a seal between the air chamber 969 and the fluid passageway; see figure 13).
The Harris et al. reference does not disclose wherein the plunger housing is configured to receive a valve limiter within an interior thereof; and
an actuator assembly coupled to each integrated valve of the at least one integrated valve, each actuator assembly comprising an actuator and the valve limiter,
wherein the actuator is configured to adjust a position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice based on a distance of movement of the valve plunger to the open position.
However, the Soland et al. reference teaches a fluid delivery manifold (10) for use with a fluid delivery system, the fluid delivery manifold comprising:
a fluid passageway comprising a fluid inlet (26) and a fluid outlet (30);
at least one integrated valve, each integrated valve comprising a plunger housing (it is considered that the combination of 14, 110 and 120 form a plunger housing), the plunger housing comprising an air chamber (122) and configured to receive a valve limiter within an interior thereof, wherein the fluid inlet, the fluid outlet, and the plunger housing are integrally-constructed (it is considered that the combination of components 14, 110 and 120 are integrally-constructed since the combination of components are secured relative to each other to form an integral unit that is constructed by assembling the components together);
a valve plunger (56, 58) arranged in the plunger housing configured to block a valve orifice (at 48 as depicted in figure 2) of the fluid outlet in a closed position of the valve plunger to prevent passage of fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice, and to open the valve orifice in an open position of the valve plunger to permit the passage of the fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet (see col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 2); and
an actuator assembly (it is considered that the components within the housing 200 constitutes an actuator assembly that includes the motor and the assembly 218) coupled to each integrated valve of the at least one integrated valve, each actuator assembly comprising an actuator (considered the motor) and the valve limiter (182),
wherein the actuator is configured to adjust a position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice based on a distance of movement of the valve plunger to the open position (see col. 5, lines 4-10 and col. 5, lines 23-27), and
wherein the air chamber and the fluid passageway are non-fluidly coupled relative to each other (it is considered that the sealing rings 118 seal the chamber 122 from the fluid passageway); and
wherein the valve limiter permits a desired limitation on the movement of the valve plunger to ensure a constant outlet pressure or a constant flow rate (see col. 5, lines 66-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the plunger housing of the fluid delivery manifold of the Harris et al. reference with a valve limiter within an interior thereof and an actuator assembly as taught by the Soland et al. reference wherein each actuator assembly comprises an actuator and the valve limiter with the actuator being configured to adjust a position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice based on a distance of movement of the valve plunger to the open position in order to limit the movement of the valve plunger to ensure a constant outlet pressure or a constant flow rate from the fluid delivery manifold.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the actuator is configured for linearly adjusting the valve limiter (Soland et al.: it is considered that the operation of the actuator to translate the valve limiter 182 in order to adjust the permitted opening amount of the valve plunger relative to the valve orifice at 48; see at least col. 5, lines 23-27) to cause a linear change in the effective valve orifice area, wherein the valve limiter is optionally in a threaded engagement with the actuator (Soland et al.: via the threaded interaction at 212 as depicted in figure 1), the actuator optionally being configured as one of a linear stepper motor or a proportional solenoid (Soland et al.: see col. 5, lines 29-34 for the actuator being a piston-type stepping actuator).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses a return spring (Harris et al.: 933) configured to engage with a plunger head (Harris et al.: 939) of the valve plunger for biasing the valve plunger in the closed position such that the valve plunger normally blocks the passage of the fluid through the valve orifice and optionally, the air chamber is configured to receive pressurized air (into the air chamber 162 (Soland et al.) or air chamber 969 (Harris et al.)) to overcome a bias of the return spring during an on cycle of the fluid delivery manifold to thereby cause the valve plunger to move to the open position by a predetermined distance based on the position of the valve limiter (as taught by the Soland et al. reference).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the position of the valve limiter is controlled by a control system (Soland et al.: see col. 5, lines 55-68 for the control of the fluid flow through the manifold based on a control system) of the integrated into an assembly including the fluid delivery manifold (Soland et al.: it is considered that the control system is integrated into an assembly that includes the fluid delivery manifold 10 since the operation of the control system is able to control the operation of the fluid delivery manifold).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the control system is configured to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure, and based on the selected outlet pressure, the control system is configured cause the actuator assembly to adjust the position of the valve limiter to reach a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure of the motive fluid when the valve plunger is in the open position (Soland et al.: see col. 5, lines 55-68 for the operation of the fluid delivery manifold 10 by the control system).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the valve plunger is normally in the closed position such that the valve plunger blocks the valve orifice (Harris et al.: based on the spring 933), and the air chamber is configured to receive pressurized air to thereby cause the valve plunger to move to the open position by a predetermined distance based on the position of the valve limiter (Soland et al.: 182), and further comprising at least one solenoid valve (Harris et al.: 912) fluidly coupled to the air chamber for delivering the pressurized air to the air chamber, wherein the control system is further configured to control an actuation status of each of the at least one solenoid valve.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the control system is further configured to control at least one chemical supply (Harris et al.: see paragraph [0080] for the inlet 928 being a chemical inlet), wherein each of the at least one chemical supplies is fluidly coupled to a mixing site (Harris et al.: each of the eductors 903 provide the area for the chemicals to mix with the motive fluid; see paragraph [0080]), wherein each mixing site is configured to receive motive fluid from the fluid outlet and chemical from a respective chemical supply of the at least one chemical supply, mix the motive fluid and the chemical to form a mixture, and dispense the mixture, and further comprising at least one solenoid valve (Harris et al.: 912) fluidly coupled to the air chamber for delivering pressurized air to the air chamber and fluidly coupled to a drive mechanism of the chemical supply of the at least one chemical supply, and wherein the control system is further configured to control an actuation status of the at least one solenoid valve to cause the motive fluid and the chemical to be dispensed, to thereby result in the dispensed motive fluid and chemical being received at the mixing site (Harris et al.: see paragraph [0080]).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the at least one integrated valve comprises a plurality of integrated valves (Harris et al.: 902; see figure 10), and wherein the control system is communicatively coupled to and configured to control each actuator of the plurality of integrated valves to control the position of each valve limiter.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein each of the air chambers is fluidly coupled to an individual solenoid valve (Harris et al.: 912; see figure 10) of the at least one solenoid valve such that the control system is configured to individually control fluid dispensing from each of the fluid outlets (Harris et al.: 903; see figure 10) of the plurality of integrated valves.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses wherein the fluid passageway is configured as a common fluid channel (Harris et al.: see the fluid passageway 907 in figure 10) of successively fluidly connected individual fluid inlets (Harris et al.: see figure 14).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using a fluid delivery manifold (Soland et al.: 10) for use with a fluid delivery system (Soland et al.: it is considered that the connections to the inlet 26 and the outlet 30 in combination with the fluid delivery manifold 10 constitutes a fluid delivery system) wherein:
the fluid delivery manifold of claim 1 (see claim 1 above) is used to adjust the position of the valve limiter (Soland et al.: 182); and
causing the valve plunger to be moved to the open position in which the valve plunger contacts the valve limiter (Soland et al.: 182) to thereby define the effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice such that the fluid is dispensed from the fluid outlet at a flow rate based on the effective valve orifice area (Soland et al.: see at least col. 5, lines 23-27 and col. 5, lines 55-68).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of the Harris et al. reference and the Soland et al. reference discloses using a control system (Soland et al.: see at least col. 5, lines 55-68) integrated (Soland et al.: it is considered that the control system is integrated into an assembly that includes the fluid delivery manifold 10 since the operation of the control system is able to control the operation of the fluid delivery manifold) into an assembly including the fluid delivery manifold to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure, and wherein the flow rate of the fluid dispensed from the fluid outlet corresponds to the selected outlet pressure (Soland et al.: see at least col. 5, lines 55-68).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyagawa et al. (US 8210493) and Kajitani (US 7070159) disclose various valve assemblies including a controllable valve limiter.
Kirschmann et al. (US 4691850), Czeck et al. (US 5203366) and Mazzei et al. (US 9643135) disclose various fluid delivery manifolds for dispensing fluids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or 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 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.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753