DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 4/10/2026. Amended claims 19 and 30 are acknowledged and the following grounds of rejection below are maintained.
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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 9-14, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,922. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present invention contain the limitations of those claims mentioned above in Patent No. 11,352,922.
Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,994,050. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present invention contain the limitations of those claims mentioned above in Patent No. 11,994,050.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 19 and 30 repeat what was already in the claim previously. Claims 19 and 30 repeats “the vent base further having a plurality of inlets disposed along the side of the vent base and an outlet disposed at a bottom of the vent base” as this was recited earlier in the claim. Claim 30 also repeats the limitation of the multiplicity of baffles as this was already mentioned previously within the claim. Claim 19 should also recite “a breather vent [[for]] to filter air drawn”.
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 19-21 and 23-38 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 19 recites the limitation "the fitting receiver" in line 7 and “the interior cavity” in line 8. Similar issues are presented in claim 30 as well. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 19-30, and 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peck et al. (U.S. Publication 20160333754), hereinafter “Peck”.
Regarding claim 19, Peck discloses a crankcase breather vent assembly (abstract) for an internal combustion engine (paragraph 2), comprising: a vent base (116) for capturing oil from blow-by gases from a crankcase (paragraph 47); a breather vent (102) for filter air drawn into the crankcase wherein the vent base comprises at least an inlet (104) disposed along a side of the vent base (shown in figure 1) and an outlet (112) disposed at a bottom of the vent base (shown in figure 1) and further wherein the vent base has a cylindrical vessel (shown in figure 1) that is received into the fitting receiver (the fitment of the filter to the base 116) and configured to communicate blow-by gases from the vent base into the interior cavity of the breather vent (shown in figure 1 wherein the arrows indicate the blow-by gasses going into the interior of filter 102); the vent base further having a plurality of inlets (104 and 108) disposed along a side of the vent base and an outlet (112) disposed at a bottom of the vent base; a plurality of baffles (series of walls that are disposed within the housing and that are provided from 104, through 102, and then downwards) disposed in an interior cavity of the vent base and are configured to direct blow-by gases along a tortuous path (all the series of walls that create the multiple turns shown by the arrows in figure 1 within the housing are considered a tortuous path) through the interior cavity; a breather vent (102) for filter air (paragraph 17) drawn into the crankcase; and a bonnet (top cover portion that meets with seal 118 shown in figure 1) for reducing oil residue on nearby engine components (paragraph 18, inherent that the cover doesn’t allow the residue to flow outwards from the housing).
Regarding claim 20, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 19, wherein the breather vent includes a filter medium (102) and a fitting receiver (shown in figure 1 with the lower seat where the filter 102 sits on) providing an opening into an interior cavity of the filter medium (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 21, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 20, wherein the fitting receiver is configured to be coupled with the vent base (116) to communicate the blow-by gases from the vent base into the interior (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 22, wherein the one or more inlets (104) receive the blow-by gases from the crankcase (paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 24, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 23, wherein the vent base includes a multiplicity of baffles (mentioned in rejection above) configured to capture oil from the blow-by gases (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 25, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 24, wherein the multiplicity of baffles (series of walls that are shown through the arrows from 104 all the way through 102 and eventually to 112) are disposed alternatingly on opposite sides of an interior cavity of the vent base (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 26, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 25, wherein the at least one outlet (14a) directs the captured oil back into the engine (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 27, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 19, wherein an upper-most of the one or more inlets (104) is configured to be placed into fluid communication with a breather inlet of the crankcase (paragraph 17). Examiner notes only one inlet is required.
Regarding claim 28, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 27, wherein a lower-most of the one or more inlets (104) is configured to receive blow-by gases from the crankcase (paragraph 17). Examiner notes only one inlet is required.
Regarding claim 29, Peck discloses the assembly of claim 28, wherein the upper-most of the one or more inlets (104) allows clean air to be drawn into the crankcase (shown with upper passage in figure 3).
Regarding claim 30, Peck discloses a vent base for a crankcase breather vent assembly of an internal combustion engine, comprising: a vent base having at least an inlet disposed along a side of the vent base and an outlet disposed at a bottom of the vent base; a plurality of baffles disposed in an interior cavity of the vent base and are configured to direct blow-by gases along a tortuous path through the interior cavity; a body (116) comprising a cylindrical vessel (shown in figure 1) having an interior wherein the cylindrical vessel that is received into the fitting receiver and configured to communicate blow-by gases from the vent base into the interior cavity of the breather vent; the vent base further having a plurality of inlets disposed along a side of the vent base and an outlet disposed at a bottom of the vent base; one or more inlets (104) disposed on a side of the vessel (shown in figure 1); and a multiplicity of baffles disposed in the interior. Refer to the rejection of claim 19 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 34, Peck discloses the vent base of claim 30, wherein the one or more inlets receive blow-by gases from a crankcase. Refer to the rejection of claim 28 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 35, Peck discloses the vent base of claim 34, wherein the multiplicity of baffles (series of walls creating the turns within the housing 116) are configured to capture oil from the blow-by gases (inherent).
Regarding claim 36, Peck discloses the vent base of claim 35, wherein the multiplicity of baffles are disposed alternatingly on opposite sides of the interior. Refer to the rejection of claim 25 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 37, Peck discloses the vent base of claim 36, wherein the outlet is configured to direct the captured oil back into the engine. Refer to the rejection of claim 26 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 38, Peck discloses the vent base of claim 37, wherein an upper-most of the one or more inlets is configured to be placed into fluid communication with a breather inlet of the crankcase while a lower-most of the one or more inlets is configured to receive blow-by gases from the crankcase. Refer to the rejection of claims 227-28 for further details since the limitations are similar.
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.
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Peck discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose a mount that is incorporated into the body to facilitate fastening the crankcase breather vent assembly within an engine bay and mounted upright. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to provide a mounting bracket to support the vent in an upright configuration for the purpose of securely mounting the breather vent to the engine that allows the oil to flow back down to the sump due to gravity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to modify Peck by incorporating a mounting bracket to support the vent upright for the purpose of securely mounting the breather vent to the engine that allows the oil to flow back down to the sump due to gravity
Regarding claim 33, Peck discloses the claimed invention except for body being made of steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have the vent base body be made of steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Peck does not disclose the vent base being a cylindrical vessel received into the fitting receiver and configured to communicate blow-by gasses from the vent base into the interior cavity of the breather vent and the vent base having a plurality of inlets disposed in the side. However, examiner notes that claims 19 and 30 does not require that the vent base must fit into the interior of the filter medium. Peck’s vent base (116) still is classified as fitting to an exterior of the filter and fitting receiver. Furthermore, there is no context within the claims for the “fitting receiver” as it is unclear as to what the fitting receiver is for within the claim. The arrows of figure 1 of Peck show that the blowby gasses still travel to the interior of the filter medium (102). If it can be argued that (116) is not the vent base, then examiner can regard the piece that fits into the interior of 102 as the vent base in figure 1 as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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 supervisor, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. 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.
/SYED O HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights