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 .
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.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim 6 limitation “the chamber wall tangent to the selector rod” in two respects: firstly, the phrase lacks proper antecedent basis since no chamber wall was previously set forth as being tangent to the selector rod; and secondly, the phrase is contrary to the disclosure which shows applicant’s rod 66 to be slidably received by the chamber wall 68 such that they are co-axial and parallel to one another rather than tangent. For purposes of applying the prior art elsewhere below the term is taken to mean parallel with the axial direction of the rod as is shown in applicant’s figures. See the following MPEP sections:
See MPEP 2173.05(e) which states "A claim which refers to "said aluminum lever," but recites only "a lever" earlier in the claim, is indefinite because it is uncertain as to the lever to which reference is made… even though indefiniteness in claim language is of semantic origin, it is not rendered unobjectionable simply because it could have been corrected. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1384, 1388 n.5, 166 USPQ 209, 213 n.5 (CCPA 1970).
MPEP 2173.03 which states that a claim may be "indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claims 7-11 depend from claim 6 and are thus similarly unclear/rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelley US3230792.
Claim 1. A shifting apparatus (e.g., fig.2) for shifting gear stages of a vehicle transmission, comprising: a selector rod (176) translationally movable along a shifting direction and having two rod free ends (opposite ends of 176), the two rod free ends mounted in respective pressure chambers (chambers in 430 communicating to 510 and 460, respectively) and loaded hydraulically by hydraulic medium (see written descriptions of “fluid”, “fluid pressure”, etc.) in the respective pressure chambers, two pressure connectors (any two of the connectors connecting pressure lines 512/446/450/456/458 to chambers of 430) at the respective pressure chambers; two hydraulic pressure lines (two of the pressure lines 512/446/450/456/458) connected to the respective pressure chambers via the respective two pressure connectors; two tank connectors (connectors connecting 510 and 460 to chambers of 430, respectively) at the respective pressure chambers; two return lines (510, 460); connected to the respective pressure chambers via the respective two tank connectors, the two return lines opening into a common tank line (582) for connection to a hydraulic tank (e.g., see written description of “sump”, or see element 544, or 546, etc.); and a valve (180/560) fluidly coupled to the two return lines via the common tank line.
Claim 2. The shifting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the valve includes a shut-off valve (180/560).
Claim 3. The shifting apparatus of claim 2, wherein the valve includes a check valve (180/560), a throughflow direction (direction of flow from 582 to 180/560) of the check valve oriented so as to face away from the two tank connectors (away from connectors that connect 510/460 to chambers of 430, respectively). Note that the claim does not specify any particular check valve structure [e.g., ball, poppet, etc.) such that the prior art valve reads thereon within the broadest reasonable interpretation since it can allow flow in a direction and can prevent flow in another direction.
Claim 4. The shifting apparatus of claim 3, wherein the check valve is loaded with spring force (via spring 574). See also the alternative 35 USC 103 obviousness rejection elsewhere below.
Claim 5. The shifting apparatus of claim 3, wherein the check valve is configured as a gravity valve. Note that the claim does not specify any particular gravity valve structure lacking in the prior art, and the written description merely specifies that a gravity valve is of simple construction that allows hydraulic medium to flow against gravity (thereby failing to overcome the prior art valve which also allows fluid to flow against gravity within the broadest reasonable interpretation). See also the alternative 35 USC 103 obviousness rejection elsewhere below.
Claim 12. An agricultural towing vehicle (See numerous written descriptions of “vehicle” which meets the claimed label “agricultural towing vehicle” since it is presumed inherently capable of performing a functional intended use of agricultural towing in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 and 2114, thereby establishing a prima facie case and shifting burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art vehicle and prove the contrary), comprising a shifting apparatus (e.g., fig.2) including: [a] selector rod (176) translationally movable along a shifting direction and having a [sic] two rod free ends (opposite ends of 176), the two rod free ends mounted in respective pressure chambers (chambers in 430 communicating to 510 and 460, respectively) and loaded hydraulically by hydraulic medium (see written descriptions of “fluid”, “fluid pressure”, etc.) in the respective pressure chambers, two pressure connectors (any two of the connectors connecting pressure lines 512/446/450/456/458 to chambers of 430) at the respective pressure chambers; two hydraulic pressure lines (two of the pressure lines 512/446/450/456/458) connected to the respective pressure chambers via the respective two pressure connectors; two tank connectors (connectors connecting 510 and 460 to chambers of 430, respectively) at the respective pressure chambers; two return lines (510, 460) connected to the respective pressure chambers via the respective two tank connectors, the two return lines opening into a common tank line (582) for connection to a hydraulic tank (e.g., see written description of “sump”, or 544, or 546, etc.).; and a valve (180/560) fluidly coupled to the two return lines via the common tank line.
Claim 13. The shifting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two return lines are directly coupled to one another upstream of the valve (510 is coupled to 460 where they meet 582, as seen in fig.2).
Claim 14. The shifting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the valve is to restrict outflow of fluid from the respective pressure chambers (in that it has all claimed valve structure and is thus presumed to be inherently capable of such functional intended use in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 and 2114, thereby establishing a prima facie case and shifting burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art valve and prove the contrary).
Claim 15. The shifting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two return lines are continuous between the common tank line and the respective pressure chambers (see fig.2).
Claim 16. An apparatus (e.g., fig.2) comprising: a first pressure chamber (a first one of the chambers in 430 communicating to 510 and 460, respectively); a second pressure chamber (a second one of the chambers in 430 communicating to 510 and 460, respectively); a first hydraulic pressure line (a first one of the pressure lines 512/446/450/456/458) fluidly coupled to the first pressure chamber; a second hydraulic pressure line (a second one of two of the pressure lines 512/446/450/456/458) fluidly coupled to the second pressure chamber; a selector rod having a first end positioned in the first pressure chamber and a second end positioned in the second pressure chamber, the second end opposite the first end; a first return line (a first one of 510, 460) fluidly coupled to the first pressure chamber; a second return line (a second one of 510, 460) fluidly coupled to the second pressure chamber; and a valve (180/560) fluidly coupled to the first and second return lines via a common tank line (582).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley US3230792.
Kelly discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 5 within the broadest reasonable interpretation, as is detailed in the 35 USC 102 rejections elsewhere above. Alternatively, the examiner notes that Official Notice was taken in the previous 10/27/2025 Office Action that spring force loaded and/or gravity types of check valves were extremely well known to be desirable in the art. Applicant’s subsequent 2/27/2026 response did not adequately traverse the official notice by specifically pointing out why the noticed fact was not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Accordingly, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03C, 37 CFR 1.111(b), Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 and In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 429 (CCPA 1970). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose either spring or gravity check valve, for the Kelly valve type.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley US3230792 in view of Espenschied US3793898.
Claim 6. The Kelly chamber is tangent to the selector rod (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejection elsewhere above). Kelly lacks an air channel as claimed. However, 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 Kelly selector rod to have an air channel arranged theron since Espenshied teaches such to have been known to be desirable (e.g., channels/bores/passages tangentially/parallel within/through/on rod 144 of Espenshied). One of ordinary skill would easily recognize such passages being beneficial for preventing over-pressurization of one tank relative the other beyond a point that could cause damage to parts. The limitation “air channel” is considered to be a mere label such that the prior art channel structure reads thereon noting that where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F. 2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F. 2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964).
Claim 7. The shifting apparatus of claim 6, wherein the air channel is arranged in a highest region (upper highest half region of the rod having the upper highest channel resulting from the claim 6 modification) of the selector rod.
Claim 8. The shifting apparatus of claim 6 wherein the air channel is configured as a recess (i.e, in that the resulting channel is recessed in/through the rod as taught by Espenschied).
Claim 9. The shifting apparatus of claim 6, wherein the air channel is arranged on a surface of the selector rod (i.e., in that the resulting channel is arranged to start/end on opposite surfaces of the rod as taught by Espenschied).
Claims 10 and 11. There is no disclosure or other evidence of record that would indicate any unexpected result (criticality) from any particular channel shape over any other to solve any stated problem and the general functioning of the channel would be substantially similar regardless of cross-sectional shape such that either of a triangular or arcuate cross sectional channel shape would be an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See the following MPEP section:
MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) details that changes in shape are obvious where there is no unexpected result (criticality) citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
See the following PTAB decisions (informative)1:
See Ex Parte Spangler, 2018-003800 (Feb. 20, 2019) which is "Informative" on design choice stating "See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965) ("Appellants have failed to show that the [ differences in the claimed invention], as compared to [ the reference], result in a difference in function or give unexpected results."); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) ("Use of such a means of electrical connection in lieu of those used in the references solves no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.")."
See Ex Parte Maeda, 2010-009814 (Oct. 23, 2012) which is "Informative" on design choice stating " Nonetheless, “design choice” may be appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results. See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995)…"
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Certain prior art references that are of record but not relied upon above are considered pertinent to applicant's invention as follows:
EP0071698 (see PTOL-892 attached to this Office Action) teaches that it was extremely well known in the valve art for a check valve to be either pure gravity or spring biased (see English Translation attached to this Office Action) and is thus relevant to the Official Notice statement set forth in the 35 USC 103 obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 5 elsewhere above.
Bachman US2432712 (see PTOL-892 mailed 10/27/2025) is not formally applied to the claims so as not to be unnecessarily duplicative of the Kelley rejections elsewhere above (see the third paragraph of MPEP 904.03). However, in the interest of compact prosecution note that Bachman discloses a shifting apparatus having two return lines (54 and 53) connected to a common tank line going to a sump (as seen in fig.13). The Bachman sump/tank would obviously be modified to have a check valve at the entrance thereof to prevent unwanted backflow as was known in the sump/tank art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
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).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 2 (revision 10), section III.D., which states “A precedential decision is binding Board authority in subsequent matters involving similar facts or issues. Informative decisions set forth Board norms that should be followed in most cases, absent justification, although an informative decision is not binding authority on the Board.”