DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 9-20 being withdrawn.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/26/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument (pages 7-8/10) relative to the Smith reference not providing a “duct for fluid communication with an interior of a housing”, is not persuasive, since the limitations in the claim recite intended use features that are not positively recited in the claims. The claimed limitations: “for a continuously variable transmission (CVT) clutch assembly having a housing including a cover” and, “for attachment to and fluid communication with an interior of the housing of the clutch assembly” are all considered as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. (MPEP 2111.02)
Applicant’s argument (pages 8-9/10) relative to the Skillman reference not providing a “duct” is not persuasive. A review of the originally filed specification for the instant application, does not provide a special meaning for the term “duct”.
A Google search for the term “duct” provides the following definition, “a tube or passageway in a building or machine for air, liquid, cables, etc”, and, “a pipe, tube, or channel that conveys a substance” (see attached non-patent literature document).
Applicant’s device, see Figure 5 (see below), shows two ducts at 104 and 204, these ducts are sections of the tubing, of the invention, that provide a passageway for the fluid within them.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In a similar manner the structural features (items 21-24) found in Skillman together create a duct having a passageway for the fluid within them. The term duct is therefore being interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Applicant’s argument (page 9/10) relative to the obviousness rejection in changing the size of the opening is not persuasive, since the only requirement is for the height dimension to be larger than the float element. This change of size for a height change would not require a hole size to be larger than the diameter of the ball float but only higher than the diameter of the ball, such a change would not permit the ball to come out of the elongated slot (in a similar manner to the opening in Smith). However, if such a change did create a situation where the ball came out of the cage, because of the inner wall of the housing surrounding the cage, the ball float would only partially come out of the cage and abut the inner diameter of the housing, and once the level of the fluid would lower, the ball would be able to drop to the seat as shown in the figure, and therefore such a change in size would not “render Skillman’s valve completely inoperable”.
Since applicant’s amendments are not persuasive, this action has been made Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/29/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 7/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a plurality of ducts and cages, and a vehicle are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species and the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the prior rejections.
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) 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Smith, Sr. (US 2611384).
Regarding claim 1, Smith Sr. disclose a duct valve (see Fig. 2,6) “for a continuously variable transmission (CVT) clutch assembly having a housing including a cover” (intended use), the duct valve comprising:
a first duct (32) having a first end (at 49) and a distal end (at 47), the first end being “for attachment to and fluid communication with an interior of the housing of the clutch assembly” (intended use);
a first valve cage (at 55) coupled to the distal end of the first duct, the first valve cage comprising a first surface (the surface of the vertical interior of 55) on lateral sides thereof and having at least one first side opening (the long vertical slots in 55 as shown in Fig. 2,6) extending through said first surface: and
a first floatable element (53) contained within the first valve cage, the floatable element being sized to have a small clearance (the gap between the edge of the float 53 and the inner surface of the vertical wall of 55, see Fig. 6) between the floatable element and the sides of the first valve cage, the first side opening having an opening width (best seen in Figure 2, the width of the slot being larger than the clearance) larger than the small clearance between the floatable element and the lateral sides of the first valve cage.
PNG
media_image2.png
881
1426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed limitations: “for a continuously variable transmission (CVT) clutch assembly having a housing including a cover” and, “for attachment to and fluid communication with an interior of the housing of the clutch assembly” are all considered as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Smith Sr. disclose the first valve cage further comprises a plurality of lateral side openings (multiple openings/slots shown in Fig.2), such lateral side openings having height dimensions larger than said first floatable element (as seen above in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Smith Sr. disclose wherein the first valve cage includes a plurality of side openings, said side openings being vertical slots in a peripheral surface (the inner bore surface of 55 that intersect with the slots surrounding the float 53) of the first valve cage (as shown in Fig. 2 multiple slots/ openings at the start of the lead line for numeral 55 surrounding float 53).
Regarding claim 5, Smith Sr. disclose the plurality of side openings have a height dimension greater than that of the first floatable element (as shown in Fig.2).
Regarding claim 6, Smith Sr. disclose the first floatable element is configured to have a first buoyancy so as to displace towards a first top surface (at 54) of the first valve cage according to a liquid level when the first valve cage is at least partially submerged in a liquid medium (the limitations regarding “is configured to have …” are met by the features in Smith Sr. as they are capable of meeting the functional limitations in the claim, the float element 53 in Smith Sr. rises under the influence of a buoyancy to a liquid, see Fig. 6, col.5, lns. 3-8).
Regarding claim 7, Smith Sr. disclose the first floatable element is configured to cover a first air opening (within 54) when the first valve cage is completely in a liquid medium, thereby preventing entering of liquid within a clutch assembly from the first duct (the limitations regarding “is configured to cover …” are met by the features in Smith Sr. as they are capable of meeting the functional limitations in the claim, the float element 53 in Smith Sr. rises under the water level. The floatable element 53 is round and therefore mates with the valve seat 54, and therefore is “configured to cover the first opening”).
Regarding claim 8, Smith Sr. disclose a top surface (the surface of the valve seat 54 mates with the float element 53 and therefore is contoured to complement the shape of the float element) of the first valve cage is contoured to complement a shape of the first floatable element.
Claim(s) 1,3,4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Skillman (US 5178184).
Regarding claim 1, Skillman disclose a duct valve (11, see Fig. 2,3) “for a continuously variable transmission (CVT) clutch assembly having a housing including a cover” (intended use), the duct valve comprising:
a first duct (21-24) having a first end (at 21) and a distal end (at 24), the first end being “for attachment to and fluid communication with an interior of the housing of the clutch assembly” (intended use);
a first valve cage (at 33,34,35) coupled to the distal end of the first duct, the first valve cage comprising a first surface (the inner vertical surface of 35) on lateral sides thereof and having at least one first side opening (the 38c as shown in Fig. 2,3) extending through said first surface: and
a first floatable element (50) contained within the first valve cage, the floatable element being sized to have a small clearance (the gap between the edge of the float 50 and the inner surface of the vertical wall of 35, see Fig. 2,3) between the floatable element and the sides of the first valve cage, the first side opening having an opening width (best seen in Figure 2, the width of the opening being larger than the clearance) larger than the small clearance between the floatable element and the lateral sides of the first valve cage.
PNG
media_image3.png
1394
884
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claimed limitations: “for a continuously variable transmission (CVT) clutch assembly having a housing including a cover” and, “for attachment to and fluid communication with an interior of the housing of the clutch assembly” are all considered as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Skillman disclose the first valve cage further comprises a first bottom surface (the surface of 34 along the bottom at 51) having a first bottom opening (the opening within 51), the first bottom opening substantially covering the first bottom surface thereof, the first bottom surface extending inwardly from the lateral sides of the first valve cage such that the opening has a width smaller than a width of the first floatable element (as shown in Fig.2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Skillman disclose wherein the first valve cage includes a plurality of side openings (38a,b,c), said side openings being vertical slots in a peripheral surface (the inner surface of 35 surrounding 50) of the first valve cage (as shown in Fig. 2 multiple slots where the openings are considered as slots in the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 6, Skillman disclose the first floatable element is configured to have a first buoyancy so as to displace towards a first top surface (at 52) of the first valve cage according to a liquid level when the first valve cage is at least partially submerged in a liquid medium (the limitations regarding “is configured to have …” are met by the features in Skillman as they are capable of meeting the functional limitations in the claim, the float element 50 in Skillman rises under the influence of a buoyancy to a liquid, see Fig. 2, col.5, lns. 43-59).
Regarding claim 7, Skillman disclose the first floatable element is configured to cover a first air opening (within 52) when the first valve cage is completely in a liquid medium, thereby preventing entering of liquid within a clutch assembly from the first duct (the limitations regarding “is configured to cover …” are met by the features in Skillman as it is capable of meeting the functional limitations in the claim, the float element 50 in Skillman rises under the fluid level. The floatable element 50 is round and therefore mates with the valve seat 52, and therefore is “configured to cover the first opening”).
Regarding claim 8, Skillman disclose a top surface (the surface of the valve seat 52 mates with the float element 50 and therefore is contoured to complement the shape of the float element) of the first valve cage is contoured to complement a shape of the first floatable element (as shown in Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillman ‘184.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Skillman discloses all of the features of the claimed invention including the first valve cage further comprises a plurality of lateral side openings (multiple openings 38 a-c, shown in Fig.2), although are silent that the lateral side openings having height dimensions larger than said first floatable element.
It would have been obvious to construct the opening to be a larger size, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to construct the opening in any size, since there is no criticality to the opening's size and invention would function as well with any opening size.
Should the rejection above not be found persuasive, the following rejection is given in an alternative manner.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillman ‘184 in view of Smith, Sr. (US 2611384).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Skillman discloses all of the features of the claimed invention including the first valve cage further comprises a plurality of lateral side openings (multiple openings 38 a-c, shown in Fig.2), although are silent that the lateral side openings having height dimensions larger than said first floatable element.
Smith Sr. teaches the use of the lateral side openings (at the start of the lead line for numeral 55 in Fig. 2) having height dimensions larger than said first floatable element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute an opening as taught by Smith, Sr. for the opening of Skillman, since it has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one float opening for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753