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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-16, drawn to a valve assembly, classified in H01M 50/325
Claim 17 – 20, drawn to a method of establishing a vent path, classified in B60L 50/64
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case a “method of establishing a vent path,” includes “at least one cell,” whereas the venting assembly comprises at least one stack; this is significant because the invention I comprises a cell stack and vent path from many cells, whereas the invention II could be met by, for example, cell-integral valves which form an “assembly” which then open into a passageway of the crossmember-assembly
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Each invention is classified in separate classifications (H01M50/325, and B60L50/64 respectively), which indicates each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Further, different keywords like “cell stack” are required for Invention I as opposed to Invention II.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Todd Barrett on 12/05/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16 Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 – 5, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Mardall, et. al. (US 20120237803 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mardall teaches a traction battery pack venting assembly (battery pack 103, “[0036] which is preferably mounted to the vehicle’s undercarriage 104”), comprising: an enclosure (“[0032] “battery pack” as used herein refers to multiple individual batteries contained within a single piece or multi-piece housing” ; wherein the housing is the enclosure); at least one cell stack within the enclosure (“cells 501” within each module, shown as “a plurality of batteries that are segregated into battery pack compartments 104,” such that the “stack” is the grouping of cells 501 packed together); a cross-member assembly within the enclosure (cross-members 301; “[0008] a plurality of cross-members”); and a valve assembly (valve assembly 805) that opens to provide a vent path from the at least one cell stack to a passageway of the cross-member assembly (“[0012] In at least one embodiment, the system also includes a ducted exhaust guide, for example fabricated from aluminum, an aluminum alloy, or steel, that is mounted within the battery pack and which surrounds and is spaced apart from at least a portion of the inside surface of the valve retention plate. The ducted exhaust guide is configured to direct the flow of hot gas and material expelled during thermal runaway through the plurality of retention plate ports to the ambient environment, for example directing the flow of gas and material in a forward direction and away from the vehicle in which the battery pack is incorporated. Preferably at least a portion of the ducted exhaust guide is angled away from the inside surface of the battery pack at an angle of between 10 and 40 degrees, and more preferably at an angle of between 15 and 30 degrees.”); as indicated by [0039 – 45], this recites exhaust port / valve assemblies 305/307 mounted upon the cross members 301, wherein the crossmembers provide a barrier between groups of cells or modules, and direct gas into the exhaust ports, and out via an exhaust path 119 comprising a ducted exhaust guide.”). Mardall at [0012, 32, 36, 39 – 45].
PNG
media_image1.png
512
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Mardall, depicting the cross members 301, which form the compartments with the central member 303 and exhaust assemblies 305 and 307.
Regarding the meaning of “a passageway of the cross-member assembly,” this includes a passageway mounted upon or coupled to the cross-members, as “of the” includes a connector or sub-element.
Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall recites the assembly of claim 1, wherein the cell stack includes a plurality of battery cells (“[0044] in the illustrated embodiment, each module 400 contains 370 individual cells”) and at least one divider (central member 303) distributed along a cell stack axis, the at least one divider compartmentalizing an interior of the enclosure into a plurality of compartments (”[008] The sealed battery pack may be divided into a plurality of compartments, for example using a central battery pack member and a plurality of cross-members, where the battery venting assembly is integrated into one of the plurality of sealed battery pack compartments”), each of the compartments holding at least one of the battery cells (“[0044] in the illustrated embodiment, each module 400 contains 370 individual cells”). Mardall at [0008, 44].
Claim 2 is anticipated by Mardall.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall recites the valve assembly (valve assembly 805) is a first valve, and further comprising a second valve, the first valve assembly configured to open to provide a vent path from a first one of the plurality of compartments to the passageway (“[0008] The sealed battery pack may be divided into a plurality of compartments, for example using a central battery pack member and a plurality of cross-members, where the battery venting assembly is integrated into one of the plurality of sealed battery pack compartments”), the second valve assembly configured to open to provide a vent path from a second one of the plurality of compartments to the passageway (each compartment comprises its own valve and exhaust port; see “[0040] During a thermal runaway event, for example one arising in one or more of the illustrated batteries 113 within the front battery pack compartment, the gas and material generated by the event easily passes out of the module since the modules, as noted above, are not designed to contain the event, or even prevent moderate pressure changes. As the pressure within the compartment (e.g., compartment 107 A) containing the cell undergoing thermal runaway increases, one or more of the valves within that compartment open. Once valve or valves 117 open, the heated gas from the thermal event is exhausted out of the battery pack. In at least one embodiment, each valve and port assembly is designed as a two stage valve that provides increased throughput as the thermal event grows and generates more gas and material. Preferably an exhaust guide is used to guide the exhausted gas and material away from the vehicle.” Here, the “passageway,” is the space between the compartments formed by the cross-member assembly and its divider and the exhaust guide.
Claim 3 is anticipated by Mardall.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall recites the valve assembly is configured to open in response to at least one battery cell of the battery cells venting (“[0040] During a thermal runaway event, for example one arising in one or more of the illustrated batteries 113 within the front battery pack compartment, the gas and material generated by the event easily passes out of the module since the modules, as noted above, are not designed to contain the event, or even prevent moderate pressure changes. As the pressure within the compartment (e.g., compartment 107 A) containing the cell undergoing thermal runaway increases, one or more of the valves within that compartment open. Once valve or valves 117 open, the heated gas from the thermal event is exhausted out of the battery pack. In at least one embodiment, each valve and port assembly is designed as a two stage valve that provides increased throughput as the thermal event grows and generates more gas and material. Preferably an exhaust guide is used to guide the exhausted gas and material away from the vehicle.) Mardall at [0040].
Claim 4 is anticipated by Mardall.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall recites the valve assembly is a first valve assembly provided by a first perforated area within a sheet of material (“[0027] the perforated valve assembly cover), and further comprising a second valve assembly provide by a second perforated area within the sheet of material, the first valve assembly configured to open to provide a vent path from a first one of the plurality of compartments to the passageway, the second valve assembly opening to provide a vent path from a second one of the plurality of compartments to the passageway (as previously discussed, each compartment comprises at least one valve; see “[0050] Cover plate 1301 includes a plurality of perforations 1303 , thus insuring that air can flow through the valve assembly whenever the valves open. It will be appreciated that plate 1301 can also utilize slots or other configurations that provide air flow through the assembly.”).
Claim 5 is anticipated by Mardall.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall teaches wherein the valve assembly is provided by a perforated area within a sheet of material. teaches “[0050] Cover plate 1301 includes a plurality of perforations 1303 , thus insuring that air can flow through the valve assembly whenever the valves open. It will be appreciated that plate 1301 can also utilize slots or other configurations that provide air flow through the assembly,” and that “[0049] Preferably valves 1003 are fabricated from an elastomer, such as fluorosilicone, that is resistant to solvents, oils and other contaminants and is capable of providing a good seal when compressed against the sealing surface of retention plate 901.”
Claim 10 is anticipated by Mardall.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall recites “[0047] FIGS. 9-13 provide various views of the exhaust port and valve assembly 805 used in central, forward battery compartment 311 of the preferred embodiment of the invention. These views do not include an exhaust guide, such as duct 803 . . . Valve retention carrier 901 , also referred to herein as a valve retention plate or member, is preferably configured to hold three valves 1003 in place during normal operation. Valves 1003 are also referred to herein as sealing members or umbrella valves . . . [0051] In the cross-sectional view of FIG. 14A, one of the umbrella valves 1003 is shown captured within the corresponding portion of valve retention plate 901.”
PNG
media_image2.png
145
207
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14A of Mardall.
This presents a tapered (i.e., changing in width from the tip 1205) plug (a seal in the form of outer umbrella like portion 1201 that may be compressed against the sealing surface of retention plate 901) which inserts into the cross member assembly (i.e., the compartment 311 formed by the crossmembers 301 and central members 303).
Claim 14 is anticipated by Mardall.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall recites the at least one cell stack includes a first cell stack and a second cell stack, the cross-member assembly disposed between the first and second cell stacks (a first and second of the “groups of cells,” disposed in the separate compartments 300 formed by cross-members 301 and central member 303), wherein the valve assembly is a first valve assembly within a plurality of first valve assemblies (“[0042] In this view the internal battery pack cross-members 301 are visible as well as the central member 303 and multiple exhaust port/valve assemblies 305 and 307”) that block flow through an plurality of first openings (as interpreted, the exhaust port comprises the opening and the valve assembly is the valve) on a first side of the cross-member assembly (see Fig. 3, wherein a first side includes the bottom of the compartment 300 formed by the cross-member assembly) the first valve assemblies each openable to provide a respective vent path from the at least one first cell stack to the passageway (the passageways including, for example, the “larger exhaust port,” described initially in [0042]), and, further comprising a plurality of second valve assemblies that block flow through a plurality of second openings on an opposite, second side of the cross-member assembly, the second valve assemblies each openable to provide a respective vent path from the second cell stack to the passageway (because a plurality comprises at least two, this can be any division of compartments; here, this is the other half of the compartments for simplicity – see previous analysis). Mardall at Fig. 3, [0042].
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mardall, in view of Katayama, et. al. (US2012121962A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 5. Claim 5 is anticipated by Mardall. Mardall teaches “[0050] Cover plate 1301 includes a plurality of perforations 1303 , thus insuring that air can flow through the valve assembly whenever the valves open. It will be appreciated that plate 1301 can also utilize slots or other configurations that provide air flow through the assembly,” and that “[0049] Preferably valves 1003 are fabricated from an elastomer, such as fluorosilicone, that is resistant to solvents, oils and other contaminants and is capable of providing a good seal when compressed against the sealing surface of retention plate 901.” However, while the valves may comprise a fluorosilicone, the entirety of the cover plate is not described as silicone.
Katayama teaches a battery unit having a plate-like tray, and a plurality of battery modules 12 in said tray, such that the tray is separated by longitudinal frame members 22. Katayama at [0022 – 24]. Katayama teaches “[0059] The silicone sheets 48 interposed between the battery modules 12 and the heat exchange panels 45 are softer than the battery modules 12 and the heat exchange panels 45 . Therefore, since the silicone sheets 48 are deformed under the weight of the battery modules 12 and firmly attached to both the battery modules 12 and the heat exchange panels 45 , it is possible to improve efficiency of heat exchange from the battery modules 12 to the heat exchange panels 45 . At the same time, in the upper surface of each heat exchange panel 45 , there are many air vent grooves 45 b extending parallel to one another. The air vent grooves 45 b allow air to be sandwiched between the heat exchange panel 45 and the silicone sheet 48 and can prevent the efficiency of heat exchange from being lowered.” In other words, this silicone sheet making contact with the duct assemblies of the battery compartments improves heat exchange to permit the more efficient heat exchange between the battery modules and the flow of air. However, because a safety ventilation system comprises hot air being exhausted, and the transfer of heat along the vent path out of the system is the purpose of such a system, Katayama also provides a teaching of a benefit to using a sheet of silicone material in a valve assembly.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the venting assembly of Mardell, such that its fluorosilicone valve assembly comprises a sheet of material which is a sheet of silicone, because Katayama teaches a benefit to heat transfer out of the battery assembly.
Claim 6 is obvious over Mardell, in view of Katayama.
Claims 7 – 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen, et. al. (US 20140227615 A1), as evidenced by Krugly, et. al., “Reed valve in a two stroke engine – what it is and how it works?”, CompoTec, Accessed February 3, 2026, https://compotec.pl/en/index.php/reed-valve-two-stroke-engine/#:~:text=Reed%20valve%20allows%20the%20mixture,of%20modern%20two%20stroke%20engines.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall is silent as to a flap.
Friesen teaches a water recapture / recycling system for electrochemical cells, wherein during discharge air, which has previously been heated to free water “absorbed in the desiccator unit 270,” can be released via a valve 260 which is a “one-way valve configured to prevent backflow (e.g. a reed valve).” Friesen at [0062]. This is critical for preventing, for example, air or fluid from outside the system entering the ventilation system, or vented vapor re-entering the system. Further, a reed valve comprises a reed “petal” or flap, which opens due to a given pressure upon the petal, which is halted by a stop plate and block. See, e.g. Krugly, Pic. 1. This structure is ideal for configurations wherein backflow would be problematic, i.e. components within a vehicle (see Krugly, discussing the use of reed valves within a carburetor) where the introduction of air could increase the risk of uncontrolled combustion. For this reason, Friesen indicates a benefit to configuring a valve within a battery apparatus to act as a one-way reed valve comprising a flap.
PNG
media_image3.png
345
303
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pic. 1 An example of a reed valve disclosed by Krugly.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the assembly of Mardall, such that the valve apparatus comprises a plurality of flaps that open into the passageway.
Claim 7 is obvious over Mardall, in view of Friesen.
Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Friesen teaches a water recapture / recycling system for electrochemical cells, wherein during discharge air, which has previously been heated to free water “absorbed in the desiccator unit 270,” can be released via a valve 260 which is a “one-way valve configured to prevent backflow (e.g. a reed valve).” Friesen at [0062]. This is critical for preventing, for example, air or fluid from outside the system entering the ventilation system, or vented vapor re-entering the system.
Claim 8 is obvious over Mardall, in view of Friesen.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall teaches a valve assembly, but is silent as to the configuration of the plurality of valves.
Friesen teaches a reed valve; a reed valve comprises a reed “petal” or flap, which opens due to a given pressure upon the petal, which is halted by a stop plate and block. See, e.g. Krugly, Pic. 1. This structure is ideal for configurations wherein backflow would be problematic, i.e. components within a vehicle (see Krugly, discussing the use of reed valves within a carburetor) where the introduction of air could increase the risk of uncontrolled combustion. The open configuration (wherein the flap is pushed open by the escaping fluid / vapor, and restricted by a stop plate which prevents backflow) is a “flow permitting” configuration, and the closed configuration is a “flow restricting” configuration.
For this reason, modified Mardall discloses the valve assembly opens to permit flow through an opening of the cross-member assembly to the passageway, and further comprising a baffle of the cross-member assembly that redirects flow through the opening to move toward an axial end of the cross-member assembly.
Claim 9 is obvious over Mardall, in view of Friesen.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
Mardall teaches a valve assembly, but is silent as to the configuration of the plurality of valves.
Friesen teaches a reed valve; a reed valve comprises a reed “petal” or flap, which opens due to a given pressure upon the petal, which is halted by a stop plate and block. See, e.g. Krugly, Pic. 1. This structure is ideal for configurations wherein backflow would be problematic, i.e. components within a vehicle (see Krugly, discussing the use of reed valves within a carburetor) where the introduction of air could increase the risk of uncontrolled combustion. The open configuration (wherein the flap is pushed open by the escaping fluid / vapor, and restricted by a stop plate which prevents backflow) is a “flow permitting” configuration, and the closed configuration is a “flow restricting” configuration. Further, an inversion is demonstrated by Pic. 1 of Krugly shown above, wherein a flap valve “inverts” as it flexes backward into the stop plate, before snapping back to its original position.
For this reason, modified Mardall discloses the valve assembly comprises a plurality of flaps that open without inverting to permit flow through the valve assembly in a first direction, wherein inverting the plurality of flaps is necessary to permit flow through the valve assembly is an opposite, second direction.
Claim 12 is obvious over Mardall, in view of Friesen.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 1.
Friesen teaches a one-way valve. Friesen at [0062]. Modified Mardall teaches the valve assembly is a one-way valve.
Claim 16 is obvious over Mardall, in view of Friesen.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mardall.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Mardall.
As previously noted, Mardall teaches an exhaust guide in the form of duct 803, wherein “[0039] exhaust guide is used to direct the flow forward along exhaust path 123 , thereby minimizing the risk of hot gas and material expelled from the forward compartment heating the rearward battery compartments.” However, Mardall also teaches a retention plate 901, which is a component of the back panel 903 wherein the duct 803 is located; this duct forms a wedge-like shape which reads upon a baffle. Mardall at Fig. 15. However, Mardall does not provide an interior view of the exhaust valves, providing only a depiction of the exterior baffle. Mardall teaches this exhaust duct provides the benefit of “helping to direct the flow of hot gas and material expelled during a thermal runaway event within the forward compartment to one side.” Id. at [0047].
PNG
media_image4.png
323
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 15 of Mardall.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify Mardall, such that the exhaust guide disposed along the exhaust path 123 is the same baffle shown in Fig. 15, because Mardall teaches a benefit to directing the flow of hot gas and material during a thermal runaway event.
Claim 11 is obvious over Mardall.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mardall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamagami, et. al. (US2008152994A1).
Mardall is silent as to the use of adhesive tape.
Yamagami teaches a battery pack having an insulation cover 4, affixed to a sealing plate 11 of a battery 2 via “double coated adhesive tape . . . and also serves to protect the safety valve 12. When the safety valve opens, the double coated adhesive tape is peeled to release a gas to the outside.” Yamagami at [0037]. Further, “[0031] The illustrated battery pack has the insulation cover 4 disposed to cover the outlet port 13 of the safety valve 12.” Id. at [0031]. Further, Yamagami teaches, “[0037] the double coated adhesive tape 6 allows the insulation cover 4 to be bonded with the battery surface easily and readily. Also when the safety valve 12 opens, the tape quickly peels, so that the gas and others can be quickly released out of the opened safety valve 12.” Id. at [0037]. In other words, Yamagami teaches a benefit to connecting the overall cover such that it is not misaligned with the unit cell, while allowing a quick release of gas from the opened outlet port.
Mardall teaches a plurality of “outlet ports” in the form of its exhaust ports, but teaches that these are outfitted with safety valves.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the exhaust ports of Mardall, such that the valve assembly is a piece of tape adhesively secured to the cross-member assembly, because Yamagami teaches a benefit to quick release of gas.
Claim 13 is obvious over Mardall, in view of Yamagami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725