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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harriger et al. (US 2023/0095906 A1) (hereinafter Harriger) in view of Perry (US 6,192,743 B1) (hereinafter Perry).
Regarding claim 1, Harriger teaches a leak detection module (LDM) [LDM 28] (see Abstract, see Fig. 2A) comprising:
a housing [46], wherein the housing is positioned between a charcoal canister [22] and atmosphere [ATM] and the housing includes a first port [64] fluidly communicating the housing to the canister [22] and a second port [66] fluidly communicating the housing to the atmosphere [ATM] (Para [0043], see Fig 2A, 3A);
a canister valve solenoid (CVS) [36] arranged within the housing and in fluid communication along a first fluid passageway [60] between the first and second ports (Para [0041], see Fig. 2A), the CVS is electrically controlled by a controller to move between open and closed positions (Para [0051-0052]);
a pump [0039] arranged within the housing and in fluid communication along a second passageway [62] between with the first and second ports, wherein the first and second fluid passageways [60, 62] are parallel to each other (Para [0039, 0041], see Fig. 2A);
a check valve [38] arranged within the housing and in fluid communication along the second passageway [62] between the first port [64] and the pump [30], wherein the check valve is configured to communicate the flow of fluid from the second port to the first port along the second passageway and to prevent the communication of fluid from the first port to the second port along the second passageway [selectively blocks canister 22 from the pump and ATM; check valve 38 can be closed to maintain a desired test pressure within the system after pump 30 is operated to obtain the desired test pressure] (Para [0041, 0052]); and
a pressure sensor [52] in fluid communication with at least one of the first and second ports (Para [0041], see Fig. 2A).
Harriger fails to teach wherein the check valve is a one-way mechanical valve, specifically an umbrella valve. Perry, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a leak detection module comprising a housing positioned between a charcoal cannister and atmosphere, wherein a one-way mechanical umbrella check valve is arranged within the housing and configured to communicate the flow of fluid in a singular direction within the housing (Col 6, lines 44-61, see Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Harriger with Perry such that the check valve is a one-way mechanical umbrella check valve, in order to reduce power requirements.
Regarding claims 2-4, Harriger in view of Perry as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the umbrella check valve includes a stem that is secured to a convex sealing disk, wherein the second passageway includes a seat situated perpendicular to and across the second passageway, and the asset is configured to receive the umbrella check valve so that the stem protrudes through a first side of the seat, and the sealing disk is pressed flush to an opposite, second side of the seat. Perry additionally teaches wherein the umbrella check valve structure includes a stem that is secured to a convex sealing disk, wherein the passageway includes a seat situated perpendicular to and across the passageway, the seat configured to receive the umbrella check valve so that the stem protrudes through a first side of the seat and the sealing disk is pressed flush to an opposite, second side of the seat [umbrella valve 176; also see umbrella valve 180] (see Perry Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Harriger in view of Perry such that the umbrella check valve includes a stem that is secured to a convex sealing disk, wherein the second passageway includes a seat situated perpendicular to and across the second passageway, and the asset is configured to receive the umbrella check valve so that the stem protrudes through a first side of the seat, and the sealing disk is pressed flush to an opposite, second side of the seat, in order to provide a one-way valve that reduces power requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/999,073 (hereinafter the ‘073 Application) in view of Perry.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘073 Application teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the check valve is a one-way mechanical valve, specifically an umbrella valve. Perry, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a leak detection module comprising a housing positioned between a charcoal cannister and atmosphere, wherein a one-way mechanical umbrella check valve is arranged within the housing and configured to communicate the flow of fluid in a singular direction within the housing (Col 6, lines 44-61, see Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the ‘073 Application with Perry such that the check valve is a one-way mechanical umbrella check valve, in order to reduce power requirements.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cook et al. (EP 1 066 461 B1) - Umbrella valve structure in leak detection system (Fig. 6)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights