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 .
Claims Status
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/28/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 14-15 has/have been amended, no claim(s) has/have been cancelled, and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 14-15 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with all of the assertions.
With regards to the first argument, as clearly explained in the prior art rejections below based solely on the base reference, and repeated here, Lowther ‘477 explicitly discloses in col. 6, lines 59-65: “In fact, my structure has so few parts that variation in performance can be quite easily obtained. For example, I may vary the spring, or the pin area, or the orifice, or a combination.”. Again, the fact that the variation in performance of the PCV system can be obtained by the variation of the orifice is enough to show one of ordinary skilled in the art that the port (“orifice 52”) is among a group of ports.
With regards to the second argument “the sleeve (orifice) 52 is press fit into place, and that its removal and replacement with a different sleeve 54 would be extremely difficult if not possible.”, the Applicant is duly reminded, again, that the difficulty or easiness in the removal or replacement with a different sleeve 54 is somewhat irrelevant with respect to the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the limitation “threadingly removable” has been shown to be obvious in view of FOSTER ‘592. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Note the rejection of that limitation is based on the combination of Lowther ‘477 in view of FOSTER ‘592, and not based solely on Lowther ‘477, as clearly discussed in the USC 103 rejections below.
With regards to the third argument, while it is true that with Lowther’s PCV system, the pin’s diameter (i.e., tapered pin portion 44) can be changed to achieve particular airflow characteristics; however, Lowther, again, clearly teaches that the variation in the performance of the PCV system can be obtained by varying the orifice 52, or the pin’s exterior, or combinations thereof. Thus, the orifice 52 of Lowther’s PCV system can be defined not only by the lumen size of orifice 52, but by a lumen in combination with the pin as in Lowther. Thus, this teaching clearly teaches the newly added amendments to claims 14 and 15. The rejections of claims 14 and 15 are hereby upheld.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOWTHER (US 3105477 A) in view of FOSTER (US 2,423,592).
Lowther ‘477 discloses the claims as follows:
14. (Currently Amended). A method of controlling air flow through a PCV valve body 26 (FIG. 1-5c; col. 1, lines 46-63) comprising selecting a port (i.e., orifice 52; FIG. 2-5c) from a group of ports (see FIG. 2-5c, col. 6, lines 59-65; e.g., “In fact, my structure has so few parts that variation in performance can be quite easily obtained. For example, I may vary the spring, or the pin area, or the orifice, or a combination.”), each port (orifice 52) of the group of ports (e.g., other variations of ports/orifice 52 (not shown)) including a lumen (see 34, 52; FIG. 2-5c) therethrough of a diameter (of the depicted port/orifice 52) different than the lumen diameters (i.e., of other un-depicted ports/orifice 52 of varying sizes) of the other ports of the group of ports (e.g., the fact that Lowther clearly teaches that the orifice 52 can be varied to obtain variation in performance shows that the depicted orifice 52 is among a selected port (the depicted orifice 52) from a group of ports (un-depicted ports/orifice 52)); and positioning the selected port (the depicted port/orifice 52 shown in the FIG.) at a fluid pathway (36) extending through the PCV valve body 28 to provide a desired size orifice 52 defined by the lumen diameter only in fluid communication with the fluid pathway 36.
Note, with respect to the orientations of the inlet 32 and outlet 34 and pin 38, Lowther ‘477 makes the explicitly disclosure as follows:
“In FIGURE 2, air from the crankcase enters the inlet 32 and goes out through the outlet 34 to the inlet manifold and then back into the cylinders. I have shown the inlet at the top in FIGURE 2, while in FIGURE 1 it would appear that the inlet is at the bottom. But either may be reversed. The point is that the valve will work with the inlet either up or down. So the housing in FIGURE 2 may be turned upside down, and this may be considered the FIGURE 1 position. Or I may reverse the valve in the FIGURE 1 arrangement with suitable piping so that the inlet is at the top with the pin supported on the spring, much like the FIGURE 2 position.”; and
“Also, in FIGURES 2 through 5, I have shown the orifice as an insert, but it should be understood that the orifice or sleeve may be an integral part of the housing and the inlet or top part 32 may be made as an insert. In order words, either end may be the insert to allow the pin to be inserted.”.
Furthermore, Lowther ‘477 explicitly teaches that the sleeve/port/orifice 52 (fig. 2-5c) is pressed-fit into place, instead of being threadingly removably positioned, as now claimed.
However, the patent to FOSTER ‘592 teaches that it is very well-known and conventional in the art of crankcase ventilation systems to provide such a PCV valve body 60, 62 (fig. 2) wherein the selected lower plug 64 can be threadingly removably positioned at the pathway 68 of the shell 66 of the PCV valve body 60. Note, the lower plug 64’s structure is structurally identical to the disclosed sleeve/port/orifice 52 of Lowther’s.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position the sleeve/port/orifice/lower plug 64, taught by FOSTER ‘592, threadingly removably at a fluid pathway extending through the PCV valve body of LOWTHER ‘477 because Applicant has not disclosed that the threaded removable positioning of the sleeve/port/orifice provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem over any other attachment/positioning types. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected that the threadingly removably positioning to perform equally well because, regardless of the attachment/positioning types, the sleeve/port/orifice/lower plug 64 would still be attached to the body of the PCV valve. Therefore, when applying the teachings of FOSTER to LOWTHER, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the plug 64 of FOSTER to be threadingly removably to said PCV valve body to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
15. (Currently Amended). A method comprising providing a positive crankcase ventilation ("PCV") valve kit 26 (FIG. 2-5c) including: a group of ports (see disclosure of claim 14 above), each port of the group of ports (see disclosure above) including a lumen (see 34, 52; FIG. 2-5c) therethrough of a diameter different than the lumen diameters of the other ports of the group of ports (again, see disclosure above as they are applicable with the instant claim); and a valve 28 (FIG. 2-5c) including a first end (e.g., outlet 34) and a second end (e.g., inlet 32) and a body 28 between the first end 34 and the second end 32, the valve first end 34 including a first portion for removably coupling to an intake manifold 16 port (FIG. 1); the valve second end 32 including a second portion for removably receiving a port selected from the group of ports (again, please refer to the disclosure in the rejection of claim 14 with respect to the claimed port selected from a group of ports); and the valve body 28 including a fluid pathway (36) extending between the intake manifold 16 port at the valve first end 34 and an orifice (52) defined solely by the lumen of the port selected from the group of ports and received by the second portion.
It is duly noted that at least the recited disclosure above by Lowther is at least still applicable to the claimed limitations of claim 15.
It is also duly noted that with respect to the first end 34 and second end 32 of the instant claim, Lowther explicitly shows, as cited above, that such orientations of inlet 32, outlet 34 and pin 38 can be switched and/or reversed based on the need.
Furthermore, Lowther ‘477 explicitly teaches that the valve body second end accepts the sleeve/port/orifice 52 (fig. 2-5c) as a pressed-fit connection/attachment, instead of being threadingly removably connection/attachment, as now claimed.
However, the patent to FOSTER ‘592 teaches that it is very well-known and conventional in the art of crankcase ventilation systems to provide such a PCV valve body 60, 62 (fig. 2) wherein the selected lower plug 64 can be threadingly removably positioned at the pathway 68 of the valve body 60 second end (shell 66). Note, both the second end of valve body and the lower plug 64’s structures are structurally identical to the disclosed sleeve/port/orifice 52 and second end of valve body of Lowther’s.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position the sleeve/port/orifice/lower plug 64 taught by FOSTER ‘592 threadingly removably at a fluid pathway extending through the PCV valve body of LOWTHER ‘477 because Applicant has not disclosed that the threaded removable positioning of the sleeve/port/orifice provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem over any other attachment/positioning types. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected that the threadingly removably positioning to perform equally well because, regardless of the attachment/positioning types, the sleeve/port/orifice/lower plug 64 would still be attached to the valve second end of the PCV valve body. Therefore, when applying the teachings of FOSTER to LOWTHER it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the plug 64 of FOSTER to be threadingly removably received within the valve second body of said PCV valve body to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
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 HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747