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 .
Response to Amendment
In Applicant’s response dated April 7, 2026, claims 1, 20, and 21 are amended. Claims 3 and 6 are drawn to a nonelected invention and are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 7-12, and 18-21 are examined.
Status of Application
In view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments in the response dated April 7, 2026, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn; however, additional rejections are provided below. In view of Applicant’s amendments in the recited response, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn. Additional rejections are provided below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites in line 1 “an securing”, which should be corrected to “a securing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9-10 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 9 recites “a pole” in line 2. Claim 9 depends on claim 7 and claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a pole” in line 6. Therefore, it is unclear if an additional pole is claimed or if the pole of claim 9 is the same as the pole of claim 1, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted Claim 9 as “the pole”. Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and is therefore also indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partington et al. [US20130302656A1], hereinafter Partington.
Regarding Claim 1, Partington discloses an integrated-valve plug to be placed in a channel for conveying a gas [Partington 0008-0010 and throughout], the integrated-valve plug comprising:
a plug body having an opening for receiving the gas from the channel [Partington 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, casing 34 as the plug body and the space within 33 as the opening], and a plug chamber [Partington 0046-0050, chamber is the region where valve 30 resides];
a valve disposed in the plug chamber, with the valve having a pole extended beyond the plug body [Partington 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, Valve is the cupped portion of 30 with pole 31 (see similar portion identified as a valve in Fig. 5 [0046]), which is in the plug chamber with pole 31 extending beyond plug body 34. For clarity on how the prior art maps to the claim see annotated Fig. 8 below. ];
a flame arrestor disposed in the plug chamber [Partington 0017, 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, Partington teaches a gap of up to 0.1 mm is provided between the tips of the ridges of 30 [Fig. 9, which can be compared with the ridges shown in more detail in Fig. 2/2a) and the inner wall of the recess [0050] which is sized to allow the escape of gas but prevent the propagation of flames [0017, 0050]]. This structure reads on a flame arrestor disposed in the plug chamber.];
a cap disposed in the plug chamber [Partington 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, 32/32a as indicated below], the cap having a tooth and including an aperture for exhausting the gas from the plug body [Partington 0044-0050, Figs. 2, 2A, 8-10, grooves 6 with channels 7 read on the claimed tooth and aperture for exiting gas. While Partington does not explicitly teach the embodiment with the tooth and aperture for the invention of Figs. 8-10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the two embodiments for the predictable result of a valve able to vent gas.]; and
a gas path defined in part from the opening, past the valve, through the flame arrestor, and through the aperture [Partington 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10 and throughout discuss the gas path. For clarity, it is shown below.].
PNG
media_image1.png
221
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
205
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note: This is an obviousness-type rejection due to the combination of embodiments as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Partington discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the flame arrestor is disposed between the valve and the cap along the gas path [Partington, Figs. 8-10, As described in claim 1, Partington teaches the flame arrestor is the structure provided by limiting the gap between the aperture in the cap; thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of Partington meets the claim limitation.].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Partington discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the valve includes an umbrella valve [Partington 0024, 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Partington’s cup-shaped valve with a pole is the shape would be considered an umbrella valve. See area circled below for clarity on how Partington meets the claim limitation.].
PNG
media_image3.png
307
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, modified Partington discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 7, wherein the umbrella valve comprises an elastic material [Partington 0024].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Partington discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 7, wherein the umbrella valve comprises the pole [Partington 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, pole 31 as part of umbrella valve as provided in claim 7, see below] and an integrated ring [Partington 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, the ring is the cup shape, see below], wherein the plug body includes a wall having a second aperture [Partington Figs. 8-10, as shown below], wherein the second aperture holds the pole and the integrated ring abuts the wall [Partington Figs. 8-10, as shown below].
PNG
media_image4.png
291
481
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
361
587
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, modified Partington discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 9, wherein the wall includes a third aperture [Partington 0046-0050, Figs. 8-10, Partington teaches a chamfered bottom of the wall in the plug body and the upper portion of the chamfer as shown below reads on the claimed third aperture], wherein the third aperture receives at least a portion of the gas from the channel [Partington 0050], and wherein the umbrella valve releases the portion of gas through the third aperture when a pressure on the umbrella valve is greater than a tension [Partington 0023-0024, see below, Partington teaches the pressure cause the valve skirt to deform and lift forming a gap for the gas to escape, which reads on the claimed limitation regarding a pressure on the umbrella valve is greater than a tension, and the gas would escape through the second aperture, then the third aperture, and then the aperture as the gas flow path as shown in claim 1 above].
PNG
media_image6.png
387
826
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, modified Partington discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the tooth is an annular tooth [Partington 0044, Fig. 2A, Partington teaches the tooth shape is formed annularly.].
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin [US20020094473A1], in further view of Anzai et al. [US20090061290A1], hereinafter Anzai.
Regarding Claim 1 and 2, Lin discloses an integrated-valve plug to be placed in a channel for conveying a gas [Lin abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-4], the integrated-valve plug comprising:
a plug body having an opening for receiving the gas from the channel [Lin 0031- 0033, Figs. 2- 4, cover portion 20 as the plug body with an opening which supports valve body 101A];
a valve disposed in the plug chamber [Lin 0031-0033, Figs. 2- 4, valve is valve body 101/101A including 16], with the valve having a pole extended beyond the plug body [Lin Fig. 4, see interpretation below];
a cap disposed in the plug chamber [Lin 0031-0033, Fig. 4, cap 180, the cap having a tooth [Lin 0031-0033, Line teaches the cap 180 threadedly engages via a threaded periphery with the threaded side wall 210, which reads on the claimed tooth] and including an aperture for exhausting the gas from the plug body [Lin 0031-0033, Fig. 4, egress 182 as the aperture]; and a gas path defined in part from the opening, past the valve, through the flame arrestor, and through the aperture [Lin 0031 Fig. 3 shows the gas path as annotated below]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the gas path shown in Fig. 3 with the embodiment of Fig. 4 since both Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 contain the same elements of the instant invention and would be considered to be obvious variations.]
Lin teaches a filter 170 disposed in the plug chamber 20 [Lin 0031-0033 Figs. 2-4] but is silent to the filter as a flame arrestor. Anzai teaches an integrated-valve plug with a filter 51 as a flame arrestor [Anzai 0132, Fig. 4]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to substitute Anzai’s flame arresting filter for Lin’s filter, which would read on a filter disposed in the plug chamber. Further with such substitution, the Lin’s filter 170 is between the valve 101A with 16 and the cap 180 and is disposed along the gas path [Lin 031, Fig. 3 shows the path of vapors as the claimed gas path] as required by claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Anzai’s teachings of a flame arrestor in Lin’s battery by substituting Lin’s filter 170 with a flame arresting filter for the predictable result of an integrated-valve plug that can block flames to prevent damaging the valve [Anzai 0047, 0086, 0132]. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
PNG
media_image7.png
363
270
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
319
309
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lin discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the plug body further includes an outer surface having a plurality of ribs [Lin 0033, Fig. 4, Lin teaches 20 is thread corresponding to the threaded portion of 101A. Such threads read on a plurality of ribs and the ribs would be considered on an outer surface of 20 since it is the only surface of 20 that is exposed prior to insertion of valve body 101A. Thus, Lin meets the requirements of claim 11.].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lin discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the plug body further includes an alignment indent, and wherein the cap includes an alignment rib disposed in the alignment indent [Lin Fig. 4, interpretation of Lin’s alignment indent in body 20 and cap 180 meeting the claim limitations.].
PNG
media_image9.png
337
303
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, modified Lin discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the tooth is an annular tooth [Lin 0031-0033, Fig. 4 Lin teaches the cap 180 threadedly engages via a threaded periphery with the threaded side wall 210, which reads on the claimed tooth. Such tooth would also read on an annular tooth since it forms a ring around the edge of cap 180.].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin [US20020094473A1], in further view of Anzai et al. [US20090061290A1], hereinafter Anzai, in further view of Holden et al. [US6432582B1, provided on the ISR and IDS dated 12/22/2022 as WO9966582A1], hereinafter Holden.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lin discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, but is silent to wherein the valve includes an umbrella valve. Holden teaches an integrated-valve plug wherein the valve includes an umbrella valve [Holden column 11, Fig. C, umbrella valve is Holden’s mushroom-shaped valve 56]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to substitute Lin’s resilient valve cap 16 with an umbrella valve as taught by Holden through simple substitution since both Holden and Lin teach valves that are configured to be movable to release gas [Holden, column 11; Lin 0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Holden’s umbrella valve with modified Lin’s integrated valve-plug for the predictable result of an integrated-valve plug for a battery designed to unseat when pressure builds within the battery case to release gas [Holden column 11; Lin 0031]. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lin discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 7, wherein the umbrella valve comprises an elastic material [Lin 0031-0033, Lin teaches the valve cap 16 is resilient. The broadest reasonable interpretation of resilient is elastic. Holden column 11, lines 9-37, and throughout teaches the valve 56 is an elastic material.]
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 19-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 19, the closest prior art of record as provided above is Partington and Lin in view of Anzai. Partington does not teach welding. Wang was previously relied upon for teaching sonic welding as claimed. It would not be obvious to combine Wang’s teachings with Partington and welding tooth 6/7 of the cap to the plug chamber as claimed since Partington’s tooth is formed as a gap to provide the gas path for venting the integrated- valve plug. It would be expected by the skilled artisan that such combination would interfere with Partington’s gas path.
Regarding Lin in view of Anzai, Lin’s tooth is the annular thread as described above. Lin teaches welding between the battery case 30 and the cover 20 [Lin 0030] . Further, Lin teaches against welding the cap to the plug since it results in poor venting of the battery, inability to maintain battery acid, and unfiltered vapors [Lin 0005-0006]. Further, Lin does not specifically teach an annular tooth as an energy concentrator for welding the cap to the plug chamber. Thus, it would not be obvious to modify Lin to meet the limitations of the claim. Wang was relied upon in the Office Action dated 1/8/2026 for teaching the subject matter of claim 19, however, it would not be obvious to combine Wang with Lin since Lin teaches against sonic welding as claimed and it is unclear how to combine Wang’s teaching with Lin’s integrated valve plug where the weld is between an annular tooth and the plug chamber.
An additional search was conducted for prior art with the subject matter of claim 19, but none was found. The Examiner consulted with Brian Ohara on the allowable subject matter of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, the closest prior art of record as provided above is Partington and Lin in view of Anzai. In Partington there is no placement tooth for securing the flame arrestor. In Partington, it is taught that the flame arrestor is the gap between the cap portion 32 and the recess in 34 since it is small enough to prevent flames from passing (see claim 1 above). For this reason, it would not be obvious to modify Partington with any other prior art since the flame arrestor would require a different mode of operation. Claim 21 depends on Claim 20 and is therefore also not obvious over Partington.
Regarding Lin in view of Anzai, Lin does not teach a placement tooth or second seating of the plug body as claimed. It would not be obvious to modify Lin in this way because it would be unclear how to do so since the flame arrestor (filter 170) is not seated on plug body 20 (see claim 1 above).
Claim 21 depends on claim 20 and is therefore also not obvious over Lin in view of Anzai.
An additional search was conducted for prior art with the subject matter of claim 19, but none was found. The Examiner consulted with Brian Ohara on the allowable subject matter of claims 20-21.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pgs. 5-6 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 19, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and thus the rejection is withdrawn. Further, Applicant’s amendments to claims 20-21 are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 20-21; thus, those rejections are withdrawn. In view of Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1, additional 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are provided above.
Applicant’s arguments on pgs. 6-9 regarding the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, after additional search and consideration, rejections over Partington, Lin in view of Anzai, and Lin in view of Anzai and Holden are provided above.
Further, the Examiner has indicated allowable subject matter above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schembri US20080166625
Regarding Claim 1, Schembri discloses an integrated-valve plug to be placed in a channel for conveying a gas [Schembri abstract and throughout], the integrated-valve plug comprising [Schembri 0044-0049, Fig. 5-8]:
a plug body having an opening for receiving the gas from the channel [Schembri 00132, 0044-0049, Fig. 5 plug body 26 receives gas battery cells through a channel formed between the axial channel 42 and the battery cell housing [0013]], and a plug chamber [Schembri 0044-0049, Fig. 5, the interior of cup shaped body 26 filled by 14];
a valve disposed in the plug chamber [Schembri 0044-0049, valve is the combination of 14/68 with O-ring 38], with the valve having a pole extended beyond the plug body [Schembri 0044-0049, Fig. 5, pole 68 extends through and beyond 26];
a cap disposed in the plug chamber [Schembri Fig. 5, cap 14], the cap having a tooth [Schembri Fig. 5, protruding sides of 14 as the claimed tooth] and including an aperture for exhausting the gas from the plug body [Schembri 0048, Fig. 5, vents 46]]; and a gas path defined in part from the opening, past the valve, and through the aperture [Schembri Fig. 5].
Schembri is silent to a flame arrestor disposed in the plug chamber and a gas path defined through the flame arrestor. Given the configuration of Schembri’s integrated-valve plug of Fig. 5, it would not be obvious to modify Schembri’s integrated-valve plug to include a flame arrestor as required by claim 1 since it is unclear how to modify Schembri to include a flame arrestor.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights