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 .
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, which reads on claims 1-4, 6 and 8-26, in the reply filed 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, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, the recitation “the support strip” should read –the modular support strip--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-25 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the modular support strip” in line 4; however, the claim is unclear as to if this recitation refers to one, some or all of the “at least one modular support strip” recited in claim 21, line 4. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the modular support strip” in claim 21, line 4, should read –the at least one modular support strip--.
Claims 22-25 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US4580691 (“Hansen”).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses 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 surface of membrane 40) of the pressure-retaining membrane, wherein the modular support strip is configured to support the pressure-retaining membrane (see specification col. 8, lines 29-45) when the pressure-retaining membrane is subjected to pressure from a pressurizable volume (volume defined at least partially by channel 11), and wherein the modular support strip is configured to be replaceable (assembly 50 is removably and replaceably assembled via bolts 6; see fig. 1); and
a sharp or pointed element (member 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 the pressure-retaining membrane;
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 (vacuum force causing fluid to flow along inward direction 16) on the pressure-retaining membrane; and
wherein the pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining membrane (40) is 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) is 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 pressure-retaining membrane (40) imparts a compressive force (force causing buckling of strip 52 and/or 54 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 surface of dome 42) and a second surface (concave surface of dome 42), wherein the first surface is configured to face the pressurizable volume (“a vessel” which can be mounted in a reversible manner with vent system; 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 pressure-retaining membrane.
Regarding claim 8, Hansen discloses the pressure-retaining membrane (40) is domed (see dome 42).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen discloses a support ring (2) configured to support the pressure-retaining membrane against a housing (mainly defined by 3 and/or 5); and,
a piercing mechanism (75),
wherein the piercing mechanism is mounted on the support ring (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hansen discloses a support ring (3) configured to support the pressure-retaining membrane (40) against a housing (mainly defined by 3 and/or 5); and,
a piercing mechanism (75),
wherein the piercing mechanism is formed integrally with the support ring (see fig. 1).
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. 11, 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. 11, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 14, Hansen discloses the sharp or pointed element (member 75 having blades 76 with respective cutting edges 77) is configured to pierce the pressure-retaining membrane (40).
Regarding claim 26, Hansen discloses (see figs. 7-10) a pressure relief device, comprising:
a housing (“vessel” in specification col. 6, lines 60-64, and col. 7, lines 23-29);
a piercing mechanism (200);
a support member (150) comprising a replaceable 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 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 pressure-retaining membrane including a line of weakness.
However, Wood teaches (see fig. 2) a reverse-buckling rupture disk having a pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining membrane to have a line of weakness, as taught by Wood, so the pressure-retaining membrane would rupture along a desired predetermined pattern.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Engineering Expedient.
Regarding claims 16-18, Hansen discloses the pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining membrane (40) which is gas and liquid impermeable.
Hansen does not disclose the pressure-retaining membrane being gas permeable.
However, Heim teaches (see fig. 2) a pressure relief device, which is a battery vent device (see paragraph [0047]), having a pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining 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 pressure-retaining membrane that can be configured to be thin while withstanding the predetermined pressure up until a rupture pressure is reached.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 21-25, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the pressure relief device, wherein the modular support strip is configured to be mechanically fastened to the support ring, in combination with the remainder limitations of the base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 15, 2025, have been fully considered.
With regards to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in the prior Office action, Applicant’s current amendments have overcome the previous indefiniteness rejection(s); however, the current amendments have necessitated new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, see Office action above.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claim 1, and claim 26, over Hansen, Applicant argues that Hansen does not disclose or teach a “modular support strip [that] is configured to be replaceable”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Hansen does not explicitly describe the modular support strip (Hansen, 52 and/or 54) as being replaceable, replaceability is an inherent characteristic of the modular support strip (Hansen, 52 and/or 54), which can be removed and replaced from the assembly of Hansen by removal of fastening bolts (Hansen, 6) together with the support member flange (mainly defined by 51 and 55). In a similar manner, Hansen reads on claim 26, see Office action, above.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 21-25, Applicant’s current amendments have overcome the prior art and are now allowable if rewritten 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights