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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 March 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 25, and 25 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,117,113. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,117,113 “anticipate” application Claims. Accordingly, application Claim 1 is not patentably distinct from Patent Claim 1 respectively.
Application 19/296,598
US Patent 12,117,113
Claim 1: A connection assembly for a fluid injection system, comprising:
1. A connection assembly, comprising:
a connection block comprising:
a connection block for disposition along a pump manifold of a pump system, the connection block comprising:
a first end hub having a first tube and a first outer shoulder extending outwardly relative to the first tube;
a first end hub having a first tube and a first outer shoulder extending outwardly relative to the first tube,
a second end hub having a second tube and a second outer shoulder extending outwardly relative to the second tube; and
a second end hub opposing the first end hub, the second end hub having a second tube and a second outer shoulder extending outwardly relative to the second tube, and
one or more faces adjacent to the first end hub and the second end hub;
one or more faces between the first end hub and the second end hub;
a first clamp and a second clamp coupled to the connection block; and
a first clamp and a second clamp coupled to the connection block; and
a plurality of mount assemblies coupling the first and second clamps to the connection block,
a plurality of mount assemblies mounting the first and second clamps to the connection block,
wherein at least one of the plurality of mount assemblies comprises
wherein at least one of the plurality of mount assemblies comprises:
a mount flange coupled to the connection block;
a mount flange coupled to the connection block,
one or more bars extending through the mount flange; and
one or more bars extending through the mount flange, and
one or more links coupled to a respective clamp of the first and second clamps, the one or more bars extending through the one or more links, and the one or more links comprising:
one or more links interfacing with the one or more bars, the one or more links coupled to a respective clamp of the first and second clamps, the one or more bars extending through the one or more links, and the one or more links comprising:
a first link on a first side of the mount flange; and
a first link on a first side of the mount flange, and
a second link on a second side of the mount flange.
a second link on a second side of the mount flange.
Thus, it is apparent that Patent Claim 1 encompasses Application Claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the above paragraph, where Applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, Applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since Application Claim 1 is anticipated by Patent Claim 1 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then Application Claim 1 is obvious over Patent Claim 1.
Additionally:
Application 19/296,598 Claims
US Patent 12,117,113 Claims
1
1
2
1
3
2
4
3
6
10
7
11
8
12
9
13
10
14, 24, 25
13
25
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guevel (US 20200240557).
Regarding Claim 10, Guevel discloses a connection assembly (Figures 2-4) for a fluid injection system1, comprising:
a first fluid conduit (210) comprising a first end hub (212) having a first tube (¶ 21) and a first outer shoulder extending outwardly relative to the first tube (at the end of 212 shown in Figure 2 clamped within 260; the flange of ¶ 28);
a second fluid conduit (220) comprising a second end hub (222) having a second tube (¶ 21) and a second outer shoulder extending outwardly relative to the second tube (at the end of 222 shown in Figure 2 clamped within 260; the flange of ¶ 28);
a clamp (260 generally) coupled to the first end hub and the second end hub (Figure 2) to fluidly couple the first and second fluid conduits together (¶ 22); and
a mount assembly (300 and 310) comprising:
a mount flange (321);
a first link (265) coupled to the clamp (Figure 4) on a first side of the mount flange (Figure 4);
a second link (263) coupled to the clamp (Figure 4) on a second side of the mount flange (Figure 4); and
one or more bars (314 and 313) extending through the mount flange (Figure 2), the first link (Figure 1), and the second link (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Guevel discloses where the clamp (260 generally) comprises:
a first segment (264; Figure 4), wherein the first link (265) is coupled to the first segment (Figure 4);
a second segment (262), wherein the second link (263) is coupled to the second segment (Figure 4); and
one or more fasteners (270 and 272) coupling the first and second segments together (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Guevel discloses where the first segment (264) and the second segment (262) each comprise: a first inner shoulder (see Annotated Figure A); a second inner shoulder (see Annotated Figure A); and a gap between the first inner shoulder and the second inner shoulder (see Annotated Figure A; the area between the inner shoulders).
PNG
media_image1.png
735
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A - Guevel
Regarding Claim 13, Guevel discloses where the first outer shoulder of the first fluid conduit and the second outer shoulder of the second fluid conduit are each received in the gaps of the first and second segments of the clamp (Figure 4; ¶ 28 where the shoulders are the flanges).
Regarding Claim 14, Guevel discloses where the mount flange (321) is coupled to at least one of the first and second fluid conduits (Figure 2 via 242; ¶ 21).
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) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizpe et al (US 20150000766) in view of Guevel (US 20200240557).
Regarding Claim 1, Arizpe et al disclose a connection assembly for a fluid injection system (Figure 6), comprising:
a connection block (68a generally) comprising:
a first end hub (to the left as seen in the orientation of Figure 6) having a first tube (under 70) and a first outer shoulder (within the clamp) extending outwardly relative to the first tube (Figure 6);
a second end hub (to the right as seen in the orientation of Figure 6) having a second tube (under 70) and a second outer shoulder (within the clamp) extending outwardly relative to the second tube (Figure 6); and
one or more faces adjacent to the first end hub and the second end hub (the surfaces of 68a and the branch to 72a);
a first clamp (to the left as seen in the orientation of Figure 6) and a second clamp (to the right as seen in the orientation of Figure 6) coupled to the connection block (Figure 6);
but fails to expressly disclose a plurality of mount assemblies coupling the first and second clamps to the connection block, wherein at least one of the plurality of mount assemblies comprises:
a mount flange coupled to the connection block;
one or more bars extending through the mount flange; and
one or more links coupled to a respective clamp of the first and second clamps, the one or more bars extending through the one or more links, and the one or more links comprising:
a first link on a first side of the mount flange; and
a second link on a second side of the mount flange.
Guevel teaches a plurality of mount assemblies (Figure 4 generally; where Guevel teaches a single mount assembly, where a mount assembly would be utilized with the plurality of clamps disclosed by Arizpe et al) coupling the first and second clamps (260 generally) to the connection block (as disclosed by Arizpe et al), wherein at least one of the plurality of mount assemblies comprises:
a mount flange (321) coupled to the connection block (as disclosed by Arizpe et al);
one or more bars (314 and 313) extending through the mount flange (Figure 2),
one or more links (263 and 265) coupled to a respective clamp of the first and second clamps (Figure 4), the one or more bars extending through the one or more links (Figure 2), and the one or more links comprising:
a first link (263) on a first side of the mount flange (Figure 4); and
a second link (265) on a second side of the mount flange (Figure 4).
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 clamp of Arizpe et al with the mount assembly as taught by Guevel for the advantage of securing the clamp to the system to prevent the clamp from being lost or misplaced during maintenance operations, as taught by Guevel (abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Arizpe et al disclose where the second end hub (to the right as seen in the orientation of Figure 6) is opposing the first end hub (to the left as seen in the orientation of Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Arizpe et al disclose where the connection block (68a generally) further comprises a central opening extending from the first end hub to the second end hub (Figure 6 through which the fluid flows from one clamp to another).
Regarding Claim 6, Guevel teaches where the first clamp and the second clamp each comprise: a first segment (262; Figure 4); a second segment (264; Figure 4); and one or more fasteners (270 and 272) coupling the first segment and the second segment together (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Guevel teaches where each of the first segment and the second segment of each of the first clamp and the second clamp comprise: a first inner shoulder (see Annotated Figure A); a second inner shoulder (see Annotated Figure A); and a gap between the first inner shoulder and the second inner shoulder (see Annotated Figure A; the area between the inner shoulders).
Regarding Claim 8, Geuvel teaches where the first outer shoulder of the connection block is received in the gap of the first segment of the first clamp and the gap of the second segment of the first clamp (Figure 4; ¶ 28 where the shoulders are the flanges), and the second outer shoulder of the connection block is received in the gap of the first segment of the second clamp and the gap of the second segment of the second clamp (Figure 4; ¶ 28 where the shoulders are the flanges; where Arizpe et al disclose the second outer shoulder in Figure 6).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizpe et al (US 20150000766) in view of Guevel (US 20200240557) in further view of Witkowski et al (US 20170370199).
Regarding Claim 3, Arizpe et al, as modified by Guevel, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the one or more faces comprise: a first planar face adjacent to the first end hub and the second end hub; one or more first openings formed in the first planar face; a second planar face adjacent to the first end hub and the second end hub, the second planar face opposing the first planar face; and one or more second openings formed in the second planar face.
Witkowski et al teaches a connection assembly (Figure 6) with a connection block (42b), a first end hub (to 114) and a second end hub (to 112) and one or more faces adjacent the first end hub and the second end hub (to each of the side connections to 110a and 110b) where the one or more faces comprise: a first planar face adjacent to the first end hub and the second end hub (the flanged connection to 110a); one or more first openings formed in the first planar face (at least for the bolts of the flange as well as the fluid flow path opening to 110a); a second planar face adjacent to the first end hub and the second end hub (the flanged connection to 110b), the second planar face opposing the first planar face (Figure 6); and one or more second openings formed in the second planar face (at least for the bolts of the flange as well as the fluid flow path opening to 110b).
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 connection block of Arizpe et al with the faces as taught by Witkowski et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a planar face of a connection block) to yield predictable results (to allow securement of additional fluid flow paths to the connection block).
Regarding Claim 4, Arizpe et al, as modified by Guevel, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the one or more faces further comprise: a first arcuate face adjacent to the first planar face and the second planar face; and a second arcuate face adjacent to the first planar face and the second planar face, the second arcuate face opposing the first arcuate face.
Witkowski et al teaches where the one or more faces further comprise: a first arcuate face (the top of connection block 42b) adjacent to the first planar face and the second planar face (Figure 6); and a second arcuate face (the bottom of the connection block 42b) adjacent to the first planar face and the second planar face, the second arcuate face opposing the first arcuate face (Figure 6).
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 connection block of Arizpe et al with the faces as taught by Witkowski et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a arcuate face of a connection block) to yield predictable results (to easily orient the connection block within the fluid system).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guevel (US 20200240557) in view of Witkowski et al (US 20170370199).
Regarding Claim 15, Guevel discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where at least one of the first and second fluid conduits is a connection block comprising opposing planar faces adjacent to the respective first end hub and second end hub.
Witkowski et al teach a first and second fluid conduit (Figure 6) where at least one of the first and second fluid conduits is a connection block (42b) comprising opposing planar faces (to 110a and 110b) adjacent to the respective first end hub and second end hub (to 112 and 114).
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 clamp of Guevel to be used in a pump connection block as taught by Witkowski et al for the purpose of utilizing the clamp of Guevel in an alternative system such as a pump connection block in which pipe connections are known and desired.
Regarding Claim 16, Witkowski et al teach where one or more openings are formed in the opposing planar faces (to attach to the bolts of the connectors of 110a and 110b; Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Guevel discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where at least one of the first and second fluid conduits is a connection block comprising.
Witkowski et al teach a first and second fluid conduit (Figure 6) where at least one of the first and second fluid conduits is a connection block (42b) comprising one or more arcuate faces (at least the top surface of the connection block 42b shown in Figure 6) adjacent to the respective first end hub and second end hub (to 112 and 114).
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 clamp of Guevel to be used in a pump connection block as taught by Witkowski et al for the purpose of utilizing the clamp of Guevel in an alternative system such as a pump connection block in which pipe connections are known and desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as discussed above, but would otherwise be allowable.
Conclusion
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
1 The recitation “for a fluid injection system” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
