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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 25, 2025, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, which read on claims 1-4, 6 and 8-26, in the reply filed on March 28, 2023, is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14-18 and 20, all recitations of “the membrane” should read –the pressure-retaining membrane--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US4580691 (“Hansen”).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses (see figs. 1-3) a pressure relief device, comprising:
a pressure-retaining membrane (40);
a support member flange (mainly defined by 51 and 55); and
a modular support strip (52 and/or 54) joined to the support member flange, the support strip positioned adjacent to a surface (concave bottom surface of membrane 40, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of the membrane,
wherein the modular support strip is configured to support the membrane (see specification col. 8, lines 29-45) when the membrane is subjected to pressure from a pressurizable volume (“a vessel” which can be mounted in a reversible manner with vent system, 10; see specification col. 6, lines 60-65, and col. 7, lines 23-29); and
a sharp or pointed element (75 having blades 76 with respective cutting edges 77) configured to apply stress to one or more discrete locations (locations which abut points 78 of cutting edges 77) on a membrane (40);
wherein the modular support strip is configured to activate by deforming (see deformed position illustrated in fig. 3) in response to a predetermined pressure acting on the membrane; and
wherein the membrane is configured to contact the sharp or pointed element when the modular support strip has deformed (see specification col. 9, lines 4-18).
Regarding claim 2, Hansen discloses the membrane (40) being formed of a polymer material (“synthetic resin polymers”; see specification col. 7, lines 50-54).
Regarding claim 3, Hansen discloses the modular support strip (52 and/or 54) being arched (arched to conform to spherical surface of dome 42; see specification col. 8, lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen discloses pressure acting on the membrane (40) imparts a compressive force (force causing buckling of strip 52 from position of fig. 2 to position of fig. 3) on the modular support strip (52 and/or 54).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen discloses the pressure-retaining membrane (40) has a first surface (convex upper surface of dome 42, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) and a second surface (concave lower surface of dome 42, relative to the orientation of fig. 1), wherein the first surface is configured to face the pressurizable volume (“a vessel” which can be mounted in a reversible manner with vent system 10; see specification col. 6, lines 60-65, and col. 7, lines 23-29), and wherein the modular support strip (52 and/or 54) is positioned adjacent to the second surface of the membrane (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen discloses the pressure-retaining membrane (40) being domed (see dome 42).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen discloses a support ring (2) configured to support the membrane (40) against a housing (3 and/or 5); and,
a piercing mechanism (75),
wherein the piercing mechanism is mounted on the support ring (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Hansen discloses a support ring (2) configured to support the membrane (2) against a housing (3 and/or 5); and,
a piercing mechanism (75),
wherein the piercing mechanism is formed integrally with the support ring (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen discloses the modular support strip (52 and/or 54) defines at least one hole (62), wherein the at least one hole is configured to set the predetermined pressure at which the modular support strip will deform (see specification col. 8, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 13, Hansen discloses the modular support strip (52 and/or 54) defines at least one notch (62) configured to set the predetermined pressure at which the modular support strip will deform (see specification col. 8, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 14, Hansen discloses the sharp or pointed element (75) being configured to pierce (see specification col. 9, lines 4-18) the membrane (40).
Regarding claim 26, Hansen discloses (see figs. 7-10) a pressure relief device, comprising:
a housing (housing defining “vessel” in specification col. 6, lines 60-65, and col. 7, lines 23-29);
a piercing mechanism (200);
a support member (150) comprising a modular support strip (52 and/or 54), wherein the piercing mechanism is held between the housing and the support member;
a membrane (140), wherein the membrane is supported by the modular support strip (see specification col. 8, lines 29-45); and,
a protective layer (160), wherein the membrane is held between the support member and the protective layer (see figs. 7 and 8);
wherein the modular support strip is configured to fail in response to a predetermined pressure imparted on the modular support strip via the membrane (see specification col. 8, lines 43-45).
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.
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.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US10436339 (“Tomasko”).
Regarding claim 12, Hansen discloses the modular support strip (52 and/or 54) defining a weakened portion, which is an aperture (62), wherein the aperture is configured to set the predetermined pressure at which the modular support strip will deform (see specification col. 8, lines 43-45).
Hansen does not disclose the weakened portion being an indentation.
However, Tomasko teaches (see fig. 2) a weakened portion being an indentation (24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Hansen by configuring the weakened portion of the support strip to be an indentation, as taught by Tomasko, to have a weakened portion while maintaining better tensile strength.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US4122595 (“Wood”).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen discloses the invention as claimed except for the membrane including a line of weakness.
However, Wood teaches (see fig. 2) a reverse-buckling rupture disk having a membrane (16) including a line of weakness (28, 42 and 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Hansen by configuring the membrane to have a line of weakness, as taught by Wood, so the membrane would rupture along a desired predetermined pattern.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen alone, as applied to claim 1 above, or alternatively in view of engineering expedient.
Regarding claims 16-18, Hansen discloses the membrane (40) being configured to achieve a desired minimum net flow area (see flow area illustrated in fig. 3), in which a relatively small amount of the passageway will be blocked, thereby allowing high flow and rapid equilibration (see specification col. 9, lines 54-57).
However, Hansen is silent to the minimum net flow area of above 50%, 60% or 70% compared to nominal pipe size flow area after opening.
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the size of the net flow area after opening determines the time it takes to reach equilibration across the pressure relief device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Hansen by configuring the membrane to achieve a minimum net flow area of above 70% compared to nominal pipe size flow area after opening, to allow for the desired equilibration time across the pressure relief device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US2013/0032219 (“Heim”).
Regarding claim 19, Hansen discloses the pressure relief device (see fig. 1) being a high flow pressure relief device; however, Hansen does not disclose the pressure relief device being a battery vent device.
Heim teaches (see fig. 2) a pressure relief device, which is a battery vent device (see paragraph [0047]), having a membrane (134) which is gas-permeable (see paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Hansen by configuring the membrane to be gas-permeable and the pressure relief device to be a battery vent device, as taught by Heim, to have a battery vent device with a membrane that can be configured to be thin while withstanding the predetermined pressure up until a rupture pressure is reached.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of engineering expedient, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Heim.
Regarding claim 20, Hansen discloses the membrane (40) which is gas and liquid impermeable. Hansen does not disclose the membrane being gas permeable.
Heim teaches (see fig. 2) a pressure relief device, which is a battery vent device (see paragraph [0047]), having a membrane (134) which is gas-permeable (see paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Hansen by configuring the membrane to be gas-permeable and the pressure relief device to be a battery vent device, as taught by Heim, to have a battery vent device with a membrane that can be configured to be thin while withstanding the predetermined pressure up until a rupture pressure is reached.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view US4591520 (“Brodie”).
Regarding claim 21, Hansen discloses (see figs. 1-7) a pressure relief device, comprising:
an inlet housing (5);
a support ring (defined mainly by 51 and 55);
at least one modular support strip (52);
a flexible membrane (40) sealed between the inlet housing and support ring, wherein the at least one modular support strip provides structural support for the flexible membrane (see specification col. 8, lines 29-45).
Hansen does not disclose the flexible membrane being a flexible graphite membrane, the flexible graphite membrane being provided with at least one line of weakness. Brodie teaches a pressure relief device having a flexible graphite membrane (diaphragm 7 having graphite layer 15; see specification col. 3, lines 24-28), the flexible graphite membrane being provided with at least one line of weakness (32; see fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Hansen by configuring the flexible membrane to be a flexible graphite membrane having at least one line of weakness, as taught by Brodie, to make the pressure relief device resistant to corrosive environments while having the flexible membrane rupture along a predetermined desired pattern.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hansen and Brodie discloses a sharp or pointed element (Hansen, 75) configured to pierce the flexible graphite membrane (Hansen, 40, as modified by Brodie, 7, above).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hansen and Brodie discloses the at least one modular support strip (Hansen, 52) is configured to deform (Hansen, with the assistance of weakened portion 62) in response to a predetermined pressure acting on the flexible graphite member (Hansen, 40, as modified by Brodie, 7, above).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Hansen and Brodie discloses the flexible graphite membrane (Hansen, 40, as modified by Brodie, 7, above) being domed (Hansen, see fig. 2, and Brodie, fig. 8).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Brodie, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of EP0556512 (“Farwell”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hansen and Brodie discloses the domed flexible graphite membrane (Hansen, 40, as modified by Brodie, 7, above) has a center and an apex (Hansen, apex coinciding with aperture 63), wherein the apex is in line with the center of the flexible graphite membrane.
However, the combination of Hansen and Brodie does not disclose the apex being offset from the center of the flexible graphite membrane.
Farwell teaches a flexible membrane (see figs. 16 and 17) having a center (center relative to the outer periphery of the planar portion of the diaphragm as illustrated in fig. 17), wherein an apex (apex of dome 114 defined relatively at the intersection of score lines 116; see figs. 16 and 17) is offset from the center of the flexible membrane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the combination of Hansen and Brodie by offsetting the apex from the center of the flexible graphite membrane, as taught by Farwell, to have fluid flow through the pressure relief device in a desired manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2025, have been fully considered.
With regards Applicant’s arguments concerning the claim objections set forth in the prior Office action dated January 26, 2024, Applicant’s amendments have overcome these objections, and are therefore now withdrawn. However, new claim objections have been made to add clarity to the claims, see Office action, above.
With regards to the interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of limitations “stress-applying device” and “piercing mechanism”, Applicant’s recent amendments have provided sufficient structure to overcome these interpretations. The claims are, therefore, not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
With regards to the rejections of claims 9, 10, 16-18 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendments have overcome these rejections; therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of the claims are now withdrawn.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that Hansen does not disclose the “modular support strip” as claimed. Applicant alleges that element “52” of Hansen cannot read on a “modular support strip” because it contradicts the use of the term “modular” in the specification.
With regards to the interpretation of the term “modular” as being “of, relating to, or based on a module or a modulus”, wherein the term “module” is interpreted as “a standard or unit of measurement”, this interpretation is relative for the present situation, because the term “module” or “modular” merely establishes a single element or unit (e.g., “n” widgets), by which a grouping volume or count can be determined.
Additionally, the specification states “FIGS. 1A-2E depict a modular support strip” (see paragraph [0090]). In the embodiment of figures 1A-1C, which is described to have “a modular support strip”, the modular support strip (132) is illustrated as a single integral unit with the support member (134) in the same manner as Hansen (modular support strip 52, and support member 51 & 55). Although Hansen does not explicitly describe the method of manufacture (e.g., welding), in an apparatus claim, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In the present case, both the “modular support strip” of the present disclosure and Hansen can be integrally attached to the support member.
It appears that Applicant is relying upon features, which are not recited in the claims (e.g., a modular support strip retained by mechanical fasteners). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claims 12 and 15-21, since Applicant’s arguments only address the subject matter of claim 1, these arguments are deemed to be addressed in the response above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753