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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites, “where the first pair of ribs are arranged 180° apart about a central axis” which depends from claim 14 which includes claim 13 which states “where the first pair of ribs are arranged 180° apart about a central axis.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen (US 3,766,898) in view of Wade (US 2003/0213479).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, McMullen discloses a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve (Fig. 2, Abstract and Title), comprising:
a housing 48;
an orifice plate 60 positioned within the housing (Col. 3, Ln. 3-5, an orifice plate is included for flow control);
a plunger 70 biased by a spring 84 and configured to travel axially through the orifice plate(Fig. 2 and 3, shown); and
a lower plate 64 including a central opening 66 and mated with an interior of the housing at a lower side of the housing (Fig. 2, shown lower plate 64 contained within the housing on its lower end);
where a base of the plunger 70 is in contact with the lower plate when the valve is in a closed position (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, Lns. 20-24, in a fully closed position the plunger head contacts the plate to fully close the opening 66).
McMullen fails to disclose where the housing or the plunger includes multiple longitudinal ribs extend along an outer surface of the plunger or an inner surface of the housing to the orifice plate.
Wade discloses a PCV valve construction (Abstract and Fig. 1-4, shown), wherein the PCV valve includes a housing 12 which contains a valve 18 which has an upper portion 28 that extends through an orifice 22, wherein the upper portion 28 contacts longitudinal ribs 32 extending along it with tapered leading edges to facilitate insertion during construction, wherein these ribs aid the valve in its travel between positions by supporting the valve within the housing without significantly increasing its surface area (¶ [0022] and [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of McMullen to include the extension on its plunger passing through the orifice and wherein the extension on the plunger or the housing has extending supporting ribs terminating at the orifice because, according to Wade, this would allow for the ribs to aid in supporting the valve within its housing for its travel between its various positions.
Regarding claim 2, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claim 1, where the multiple longitudinal ribs are equivalently spaced about a central axis (Wade, Figs. 5 and 8-8A, the ribs on the housing and plunger are evenly spaced).
Regarding claims 3 and 12-13, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claims 2 and 11, where the multiple longitudinal ribs include a pair of ribs that are arranged 180° apart about the central axis (Wade Fig. 5, shown).
Regarding claims 4 and 14-15, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claims 1 and 13, where the multiple longitudinal ribs include two pairs of ribs each of which are arranged 180° apart about a central axis (Wade, Fig. 5, shown ribs being in pairs).
Regarding claim 5, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claim 1, where the plunger includes an upper reduced diameter section and a body (McMullen Fig. 2 and Wade Fig 8 both showing a plunger having a reduced diameter section).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claims 5 and 11, where the plunger includes a base positioned below the body (McMullen Fig. 2, shown plunger having a base portion below its body 78).
Regarding claim 7, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claim 1, further comprising a seal arranged in a recess in the housing (McMullen Fig 2 shows a housing having a lower indent which includes rubber grommet 68 for sealing the valve and further wherein the upper portion of the housing 56 is shown fitted with conduit 46 into its central indented portion which acts to seal against vapors).
Regarding claim 8, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claim 1, where the spring is a coil spring (McMullen Fig. 2, shown)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claims 1 and 11, where the multiple longitudinal ribs form a slip fit interface with the orifice plate (Wade Fig. 2, the protrusions extending such that the slide through the orifice, such as they would when included in McMullen).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV valve of claim 1 and 11, where the multiple longitudinal ribs are integrally formed with the housing (Wade Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 17-18, the modified McMullen discloses the PCV system of claim 11, but does not disclose where the internal combustion engine is a boosted internal combustion engine or where the internal combustion engine is a naturally aspirated internal combustion engine.
However, the type of crankcase internal combustion engines making use of PCV valves is of a very limited amount with regards to aspiration: the engine is naturally aspirated or it is boosted. Both types are old and well-known in the art.
As one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known options in their technical field then the inclusion of a naturally aspirated or boosted engine with the PCV valve would be an obvious to try engine variant to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. The engine MUST be one of these two options as internal combustion engines require aspiration to function - either natural aspirated or boosted - and as such it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to apply the PCV valve Wade to a naturally aspirated engine or a boosted engine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to claim 18, examiner notes that applicant’s remark that naturally aspirated engines are simplified compared to their boosted counterparts has no bearing on the obviousness rejection above or previously which relies on there only being two choices of old and well-known internal combustion engines and designers having to choose between them. Further, the simplicity of a naturally aspirated engine, a well-known feature, does not apply to claim 17 which claims a boosted engine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harbert (US 2008/0121199) discloses a PCV valve 88 with an indent containing a seal 56 (Fig. 3B, shown).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 KEVIN A LATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6p.
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 at 5712721196. 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.
/KEVIN A LATHERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights