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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration - After Non-Final Rejection filed on September 11, 2025 wherein: claim(s) 1 was amended, and claim(s) 2 canceled. Examiner notes amendments in claim(s) are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 103. Examiner further notes amendments to Drawings of November 30, 2025 aimed at overcoming their objections. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 3 and Drawings are pending and will be examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/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-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites --rib flanges coming into close contact with top of the top plate;-- [line(s) 8] wherein --top-- lacks antecedent basis in the Drawings (see FIG. 3 below, Examiner’s Edited) since --rib flanges 20-- appears to contact --top plate 10-- side wise and not at its --top--. For purposes of examination --top-- will be interpreted as side wise.
PNG
media_image1.png
1146
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, recites --an insulation member disposed inside the inner walls and supported against the lattice structure-- [line(s) 11-12] wherein --inside-- is vague and indefinite since --insulation member 40-- seems disposed at a side of the --inner walls 34-- (see FIG. 3 above, Examiner’s Edited). For purposes of examination --inside-- will be interpreted as at a side.
Claim 1, recites --the body flanges are disposed along edges of underside of the top plate-- [line(s) 13] wherein --along edges of underside-- is vague and indefinite since --body flanges 32-- seems disposed below of the --top plate 10-- (see FIG. 3 above, Examiner’s Edited). For purposes of examination --along edges of underside-- will be interpreted as below.
Claim 3 rejected by dependency of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malcolm (U. S. Patent US4662126A) hereinafter MALCOLM, in view of Norton (U. S. Patent US4198454A) hereinafter NORTON.
Regarding claim 1, MALCOLM teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 below) an explosion panel 10 capable of use on an energy storage system, comprising:
a top plate 16 having explosion lines 28 ruptured at a predetermined high pressure (page 5, col. 5, lines 48-59, “... rupture...”); `
a body M3-01 having
body flanges 34 extending horizontally outward (X) therefrom to be supported against a top surface of a container for the energy storage system and
inner walls M3-02 extending arcuately downward (-Y) from the body flanges 34 to have given heights (H);
rib flanges 36 coming into close contact with top of the top plate 16;
a lattice structure 48 disposed on the lower portions M3-03 of the inner walls M3-02 of the body M3-01; and
an insulation member 48 disposed inside the inner walls M3-02 and supported against the lattice structure 48,
wherein the rib flanges 36 are disposed along edges M3-04 of the top16, and
the body flanges 34 are disposed along edges M3-04 of underside M3-05 of the top plate 16,
wherein the rib flanges 36 come into contact with the top plate 16 without contact with the explosion lines 28, and
the body flanges 34 extend inward (-X), and
wherein the insulation member 48 is adjustable in thickness according to the changes in the given heights (H) of the inner walls M3-02 of the body M3-01.
MALCOLM fails to teach inner walls M3-02 extending vertically downward (-Y) from the body flanges 34.
MALCOLM fails to teach lattice structure 48 is different as the insulation member 48.
MALCOLM fails to teach body flanges 34 extend inward (-X) further than the rib flanges 36 so as to support at least a part of the explosion lines 28.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified inner walls M3-02 [i.e., extend vertically downward (-Y)] in the explosion panel 10 of MALCOLM to meet design requirements since a change of form / shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Furthermore, NORTON teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2 below) a panel 110 for use in constructing an enclosure (page 1, Abstract, lines 1-3) capable of resisting explosive forces wherein a lattice structure 16 is disposed on the lower portions of the panel 12; and an insulation member 24 is disposed in lower portions of the panel 12 and supported against the lattice structure 16 for structural / thermal purposes (page 4, col. 2, line 46 / page 4, col. 2, line 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified lattice structure 48 in the explosion panel 10 of MALCOLM of MALCOLM with lattice structure 16 as taught in the panel 110 of NORTON for structural / thermal purposes.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to adjust inward (-X) extension of body flanges 34 further than the rib flanges 36 (i.e., to support at least a part of the explosion lines 28) in the explosion panel 10 of MALCOLM and NORTON to meet design requirements since change is regarded as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP 2144.04 / IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
PNG
media_image2.png
792
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
755
793
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
864
173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
795
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
783
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, MALCOLM and NORTON (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. MALCOLM fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 above) explosion panel 10, wherein the inner walls M3-02 of the body M3-01 and the lattice structure 48 are made of vertically (-Y) arranged plates having given heights (H).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed inner walls M3-02 / lattice structure 48 in the explosion panel 10 of MALCOLM and NORTON of vertically (-Y) arranged plates to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) of claim(s) 1, 3 (moot for claim 2 upon its cancellation) and Drawings objections are persuasive. However, upon further examination in view of amendments filed on September 11, 2025, rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) of claim(s) 1, 3 stand.
Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 of claim(s) 1, 3 in aforementioned reply have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shen et al. (China Patent Application Publication CN112623515A): teaches a “box” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Cui et al. (China Patent Application Publication CN111099138A): teaches a “device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Farwell et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20150053279A1): teaches “assemblies” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Jakus et al. (Canada Patent Application Publication CA2865244A1): teaches a “vent” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Lee (South Korea Patent KR101066236B1): teaches a “burst disc” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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 ttps://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.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735