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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 6, 14-17 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (claims 3 and 6) and invention (claims 14-17 and 22), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Further, Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 17, 2025.
Status of Application
Per the Applicant’s response dated November 17, 2025, claims 14-17 and 22 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 18-21 are pending. Claims 3 and 6 are drawn to a nonelected species. Claims 1-2, 7-12, ad 18-21 are examined.
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.
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 19, 20, and 21 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “an energy concentrator” in claim 19 is used by the claim to mean a “welding surface” while the accepted meaning is “a location or means for storing energy”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Examiner recommends amending “an energy concentrator” to “a welding surface”.
The terms “an encouragement” and “the encouragement” in claims 20 and 21, respectively, is used by the claim to mean “positioning” or “securing” while the accepted meaning is “the act of giving hope or courage”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Examiner recommends amending an/the “encouragement of the placement of the flame arrestor” to “positioning the flame arrestor” in claims 20 and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-12, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holden et al. [US6432582B1, provided on the ISR and IDS dated 12/22/2022 as WO9966582A1], hereinafter Holden.
Regarding Claim 1, Holden discloses an integrated-valve plug to be placed in a channel for conveying a gas [Holden vent valve 100, discussed throughout], the integrated-valve plug comprising:
a plug body having an opening for receiving the gas from the channel [Holden columns 7-10 and throughout, Figs. 1, 2, A-H, Plug body includes cap 126, upper portion 104, lower portion 106, cage 114, and the claimed opening is aperture 120. Plug body as described receives gas from battery cells within compartments 12 which vent into common headspace 24 as the claimed channel through apertures 120 in the lower portion of the plug.]
a plug chamber [Holden columns 9-12 and throughout, Figs. A-H where the plug chamber is the internal portions of the plug body [i.e. Fig. C];
a valve disposed in the plug chamber [Holden column 11 and throughout, Fig. C, valve 56];
a flame arrestor disposed in the plug chamber [Holden column 10 and throughout, Fig. C, arrestor 128];
a cap disposed in the plug chamber, the cap having a tooth and including an aperture for exhausting the gas from the plug body [Holden column 10 and throughout, Fig. C, cap 126, aperture 134; either of the features referenced in the annotated figure below read on the claimed tooth]; and
a gas path defined in part from the opening, past the valve, through the flame arrestor, and through the aperture [Holden columns 9-13, discussed throughout].
PNG
media_image1.png
696
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the flame arrestor is disposed between the valve and the cap along the gas path [Holden Fig. C].
Regarding Claim 7, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the valve includes an umbrella valve [Holden column 11, Fig. C].
Regarding Claim 8, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 7, wherein the umbrella valve comprises an elastic material [Holden column 11, lines 9-37, and throughout].
Regarding Claim 9, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 7, wherein the umbrella valve comprises a pole [Holden column 11, Fig. C, stem 112] and an integrated ring [Holden column 11, Fig. C, peripheral edge 202a], wherein the plug body includes a wall having a second aperture [Holden columns 9-11, Fig. C, wall 104/108/110 with aperture 86] wherein the second aperture holds the pole and the integrated ring abuts the wall [Holden column 11, Fig. C].
Regarding Claim 10, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 9, wherein the wall includes a third aperture, wherein the third aperture receives at least a portion of the gas from the channel [Holden column 11 and throughout, Fig. C, where space above 110 is the claimed third aperture in wall 108/104], 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 [Holden column 11 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 11, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the plug body further includes an outer surface having a plurality of ribs [Holden Figs. A and D show a plurality of ribs on the outer surface of upper portion 104. Further in columns 10-13, Figs. A, D, F, G, cage 114 also reads on the claimed outer surface having a plurality of ribs. Further, in column 10, Fig. D, camming shoulders/blocks/surfaces 38, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148 read on the claimed ribs.].
Regarding Claim 12, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the plug body further includes an alignment indent [Holden Fig. C, indented upper part of 104], and wherein the cap includes an alignment rib disposed in the alignment indent [Holden Fig. C, The claimed alignment rib can be interpretated as the outer lower surface of cap 126 outside of 130, which is disposed over the indent, or part 130, which presses against the indent].
Regarding Claim 18, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the tooth is an annular tooth [Holden Figs. B/C. For the interpretation of claim 1 where the claimed tooth is feature Z (see above), the tooth is an annular tooth per Figs. B/C.] .
Regarding Claim 20, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, further comprising a placement tooth on a second seating surface of the plug body for positioning [see 112b rejection above] the flame arrestor [Holden column 10, Fig. C, with shoulder 132 as the placement tooth and the surface the arrestor is seated on as the second seating surface].
Regarding Claim 21, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 20, further comprising an alignment surface of the plug body for positioning [see 112b rejection above] the flame arrestor [Holden Fig. C, interior surfaces of 104 in contact with the outer edge of arrestor 128 as an alignment surface].
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.
Rejection for interpretation where tab 130 is the tooth of claim 1.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holden, as provided in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 18, Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 1, wherein the tooth is an annular tooth [As described above, for the interpretation of Holden where the tooth is feature Z, Holden anticipates the limitation annular tooth. For the alternative interpretation where the tooth is 130, Holden does not explicitly describe the shape of 130 as annular. Holden discloses tabs 130 are positioned to fit snugly within the cylindrical upper portion of 104 [Holden column 10, Fig. C]. Holden discloses an embodiment with tab 130’ fits in an annular groove [Holden column 11, Fig. J]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Holden’s embodiments such that the tooth 130 in Fig. C is an annular tooth as feature 130 since it would still perform the function of securing the cap to the plug body at 104. Further, changing the shape of 130 to be annular would be obvious with the motivation of there being more surface area to support the disclosed “fit snugly” if tab 130 is annular and changes in shape are obvious per MPEP 2144 IV, B.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Holden discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 18 (as applied to the obviousness rejection provided above where tab 130 corresponds to the tooth of claim 1). Holden discloses frictional coupling and does not explicitly wherein the annular tooth is a welding surface [see 112b rejection above] for sonic welding the cap to the plug chamber. The term sonic welding is considered a product by process limitation per MPEP 2113. "[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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In the instant invention, the final structure required is the cap is secured to the plug body by the tooth. Holden’s cap 126 is secured to body 104 by tooth 130; thus, Holden teaches this structure and reads on the instant claim.].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holden, as provided in claim 1 above and claim 18 (both anticipation and obviousness rejections) above, and in further view of Wang [CN107394086A, machine translation relied upon provided].
Regarding Claim 19, Holden (anticipation rejection, where Z is the tooth of claim 1) or modified Holden (obviousness rejection, where 130 is the tooth of claim 1) discloses the integrated-valve plug of claim 18, Holden teaches the cap 126 is attached to the plug chamber wall portion 104 with an annual tooth (either part Z, anticipation rejection, or tab 130 modified to be an annular tooth as described above) but does not explicitly disclose sonic welding. Wang discloses sonic welding the tooth 13 of a valve cap 10 to a plug chamber valve body connecting part 62 [Wang 0009, 0021, 0036, 0038, Figs. 1, 5-6, and 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Wang’s teaching of sonic welding a tooth as a welding surface of a cap to a plug chamber to Holden or modified Holden’s integrated-valve plug of claim 18 to provide a stable and quick join between cap and the plug chamber [Wang 0009, 0021, 0036, 0038, Figs. 1, 5-6, and 7], which would be expected to facilitate sealing the plug chamber. Such modification would be considered an improvement to the invention of Holden. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result, MPEP 2143 (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
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 Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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
/STEWART A FRASER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724