DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 1 June 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) Rejection of Claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, Applicant argues the three states are clear as they are defined by seal position. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The terms used in the claim “non-operational state”, “pressure mode during a testing state”, and “pressure-hold mode during the testing state” do not refer to the seals at all. While the claims do limit the seal position in each state, it is unclear as to what is non-operation in the “non-operational state”, what is a pressure mode and the test of “pressure mode during a testing state”, and what pressure is being held and what is the test of the “pressure-hold mode during the testing state”, thus rendering the claims indefinite. As such, the 112(b) Rejection of Claims 10 – 15 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues Wang does not disclose the seal obstructing the canister port in the third position which fluidly blocks the pump port from the atmospheric port and fluidly separates the first and second ports.
Note Examiner does not rely on Wang to teach the limitation. Instead, Young teaches the seal (90, 98) obstructing the charcoal canister port (Port 3) in the third position which fluidly blocks the pump port (Port 1) from the atmospheric port (Port 2) and fluidly separates the first and second ports with the seal (Figure 3).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As Wang fails to teach detailed structure of the solenoid valve, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Wang to use a solenoid valve such as Young’s for the benefit of utilizing structure known in the art to control three ports, as taught by Young [0011].
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 10 – 15 are 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.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, the claim recites three states: “non-operational state”, “pressure mode during a testing state”, and “pressure-hold mode during the testing state”. The metes and bounds of these states are unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite. What specific criteria/conditions must be present for each state so that the LDM can be considered as being in that state? The same can be said of the states recited in Claim 11.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
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) 1, 5, and 7 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 206972399), in view of Young et al. (US 2011/0240896). Citations pertaining to Wang refer to the attached English translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a leak detection module (LDM), in at least Figures 4 – 13, comprising: a housing (1) having a charcoal canister connection configured to be fluidly connected to a charcoal canister (connection between 105 and 3) [0047] (Figure 4 – 13), the housing having an atmospheric connection configured to be fluidly connected to atmosphere (connection between 21 and 2) [0048] (Figures 4 – 13); a pump (102) arranged in the housing and having first and second ports (see ports to the top and right of 102) [0047] (Figures 4 – 13); an electric motor arranged in the housing and configured to drive the pump (see portion of 102 labeled “M”) [0050]; and a three-position proportional solenoid valve (106, 107, 108) [0047] arranged in the housing (Figures 4 – 13) and including: a housing (inherently present for the valve to function) having a charcoal canister port fluidly connected to the charcoal canister connection (connection between the valve and 105) (Figures 4 - 13), a pump port fluidly connected to the first port by a first pump passageway (connection between the valve and 102) (Figures 4 – 13), and an atmospheric port fluidly connected to the second port by a second pump passageway (connection between 102 and 21) (Figure 4 – 13), and the atmospheric port fluidly connected to the atmospheric connection by an atmospheric passageway (21) (Figures 4 – 13).
Wang fails to teach detailed structure of the solenoid valve including a rod disposed in a coil and having a seal, the rod configured to move longitudinally between first, second and third positions, the seal obstructing the pump port and fluidly connecting the charcoal canister port and the atmospheric port in the first position, the seal obstructing the atmospheric port and fluidly connecting the charcoal canister port and the pump port in the second position, and the seal obstructing the charcoal canister port in the third position which fluidly blocks the pump port from the atmospheric port and fluidly separates the first and second ports with the seal.
Young teaches a rod (66, 68, 80) disposed in a coil (52, 54) and having a seal (90, 98), the rod configured to move longitudinally between first, second and third positions (Figures 2 – 4), the seal obstructing a pump port (Port 1) and fluidly connecting a charcoal canister port (Port 3) and an atmospheric port (Port 2) in the first position (Figure 4), the seal obstructing the atmospheric port and fluidly connecting the charcoal canister port and the pump port in the second position (Figure 2), and the seal obstructing the charcoal canister port in the third position which fluidly blocks the pump port from the atmospheric port and fluidly separates the first and second ports with the seal (Figure 3).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Wang so that the solenoid valve includes a rod disposed in a coil and having a seal, the rod configured to move longitudinally between first, second and third positions, the seal obstructing the pump port and fluidly connecting the charcoal canister port and the atmospheric port in the first position, the seal obstructing the atmospheric port and fluidly connecting the charcoal canister port and the pump port in the second position, and the seal obstructing the charcoal canister port in the third position which fluidly blocks the pump port from the atmospheric port and fluidly separates the first and second ports with the seal for the benefit of utilizing structure known in the art to control three ports, as taught by Young [0011].
Regarding Claim 5, Young teaches the third position (Figure 3) is arranged longitudinally between the first (Figure 4) and second positions (Figure 2).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Young teaches fluid is not permitted to pass through the proportion solenoid valve in the third position (Figure 3).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, Young teaches there is no recirculation path between the first and second ports with the seal in the third position (Figure 3).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses an evaporative emissions system (Figures 4 – 13) including the LDM of claim 1 (as rendered obvious by the combination of Wang and Young as discussed above), the system comprising a filter (2) arranged between the second pump passageway and the atmosphere (Figures 4 – 13), and a charcoal canister (3) fluidly connected to the charcoal canister connection (Figures 4 – 13), fluidly connected to an internal combustion engine [0005], and fluidly connected to a fuel tank (4) (Figures 4 – 13).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses operating the LDM between three operational states, comprising: a non-operational state in which the seal is in the first position (Figure 7); a pressure mode during a testing state in which the seal is in the second position (Figure 6), and the pump is configured to move fluid between the canister and atmospheric ports (Figure 6); and a pressure-hold mode during the testing state in which the seal is in the third position (Figure 4), wherein the combination renders obvious the use of the seal as discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Nevertheless, the combination fails to expressly disclose a controller, the controller in communication with the proportional solenoid valve and the electric motor, the controller configured to operate the LDM.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art both the proportional solenoid valve and the electric motor are electric components which commonly utilize a controller to operate.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to include a controller, the controller in communication with the proportional solenoid valve and the electric motor, the controller configured to operate the LDM for the benefit of automating the Wang and Young’s processes so that a vehicle ECU can control the emissions system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art fails to anticipate nor render obvious a first and second core arranged in the coil, the first core slideably supporting an end of the rod, the second core fixedly supported on the rod and configured to be longitudinally movable with the rod in response to a magnetic field from the coil, in combination with the recited claim limitations.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12 - 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights