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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 2023118436014, filed on 29 December 2023.
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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the non-operational state" and “the pressure-hold mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets Claim 11 as being dependent upon Claim 10.
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 and 6 are 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
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