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 .
Examiner’s Remarks
Applicant is thanked for their January 26, 2026 response to the Office Action filed November 6, 2025. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 19 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any arguments/ remarks directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 9 – 11, and 13 – 19 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Lidgard (US 3,704,807), Applicant remarked that (inter alia): Casey et al in view of Lidgard teaches a dome-shaped pressure-retaining membrane (Casey 110, Fig 1, 210 Fig. 2, 310, Fig 3, etc.)) (contended "membrane") and Lidgard's metallic sealing diaphragm (12) (contended "membrane"). Respectfully, Casey's "dome-shaped pressure-retaining membrane" and Lidgard's "metallic sealing diaphragm" (12) are not disclosed as a flat stretched membrane formed as a thin, pliable film having at least one layer; and are not disclosed as affixed onto the base body (i.e., welded) at an edge surrounding the gas passage opening. (They), taken alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose or fairly suggest: "wherein the membrane further comprises a central area interposed between the weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened" as required by the claim language of amended independent claims 1, 14 and/or 17.
The examiner respectfully notes that, regarding the argument that Casey's membrane and Lidgard's diaphragm fail to show “a flat stretched membrane”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a flat stretched thin”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s)1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, Applicant is directed to Casey figures 10A, 10B, and specification paragraphs [0074 – 0077] for support of a flat membrane.
PNG
media_image1.png
545
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully notes that, regarding the argument that Casey's membrane and Lidgard's diaphragm fail to show wherein the membranes are not disclosed as being “formed as a thin, pliable film having at least one layer”, Wendling et al (CA 2752828)2 was relied upon to demonstrate that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the membrane such that the membrane is formed of formed from a thermoplastic (polypropylene, polyethylene, PBT, PET, [0059, 0063]) that is laminated [0059, 0063] and/or vapor-deposited with a metallic layer (aluminum, copper, nickel [0059,0063]), and the membrane has a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm. (the thickness of the pressure release foil-type vent member … can range from about 0.0254 mm (25.4 µm) to about 0.127 mm (127 µm)” [0062]. As Wendling et al teaches a degassing unit membrane formed of a claimed material having a claimed wall thickness, it has been understood that if Applicant’s membrane demonstrates the claimed characteristics, the membrane taught Wendling et al would provide the same features. Please resume the discussion of Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Lidgard, and further in view of Wendling et al, below.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 9 – 11, and 13 – 19 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Lidgard (US 3,704,807), Applicant remarked that (inter alia): (They), taken alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose or fairly suggest: "wherein the membrane further comprises a central area interposed between the weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened" as required by the claim language of amended independent claims 1, 14 and/or 17.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Casey et al. Casey et al discloses wherein the membrane (110) comprises weakened areas ([0073, 0074, 0077], fig 10A “lines of weakness 1011”) in which mechanical properties of the membrane are weakened by any one or any combination of a local melting of a material using a laser, scribing and embossing [0073], wherein “one of more lines of weakness may be offset from the center of a pressure-retaining membrane.” [0077]
PNG
media_image2.png
279
1406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 9 – 11, and 13 – 19 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Lidgard (US 3,704,807), Applicant remarked that (inter alia): “Lingard's "metallic sealing diaphragm 12" also totally lacks disclosure of "weakened areas, weakened lines" and disclosure of "a central area interposed between the weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened" as required by the claim language of amended independent claims 1, 14 and/or 17.
The examiner respectfully notes that Lidgard was relied upon to teach that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a base body that is connectable in a fluid-tight manner to an edge of a housing opening, and wherein a membrane is fluid-tightly connected to the base body.
Please note that Casey et al discloses “a flat, flexible graphite (e.g., a carbon-resin composite) membrane. Graphite materials may be particularly useful to provide leak-tightness and flexibility for pressure-retaining membranes” [0075], and that “In one embodiment, the membrane itself may form a sealing mechanism… the membrane may include a flange portion that may be used to form a seal between the pressure relief device housing and the enclosure to which it is mounted.” [0094]. However, as Casey et al did not explicitly disclose that the system elements were fluid tight, Lidgard relied upon to demonstrate that the technique would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Lidgard (US 3,704,807), and further in view of Magnier (FR 2971357), Applicant remarked that (inter alia): “the presence of Magnier's "thin film (50) is not analogous to the applicant's claimed "weakened areas") as Magnier's thin film does not meet the requitements of the above base claim 1 claim language, but is instead a film thickness property of Magnier's thin film (50).”
The examiner regrets any lack of clarity in paragraphs 27 – 30 of the previous office action. Magnier discloses a degassing unit rupture element (fig 2, 5: (15)) comprising:
a retainer (35) having a wall thickness of the order of 0.05 – 0.25 mm, the retainer is provided with through-holes (37);
a thick film (51) of pre-cut synthetic material having a wall thickness of the order of 0.1 to 0.3 mm,
a thin film (50) of tight synthetic material having a wall thickness of the order of 0.005 to 0.1 mm,
a second a thick film (51) of pre-cut synthetic material having a wall thickness of the order of 0.1 to 0.3 mm, and
a reinforcing portion (44) having a wall thickness of the order of between 0.2 and 1 mm. The reinforcing portion 44 comprises a plurality of petals, for example five, separated by radial slots 45, which can be formed throughout its thickness.
Please note that the residual thickness of the degassing unit (15) is at most 0.205 mm (or 205µm) at the through holes (37) and the radial slot portions of portion (44)3, and at least 0.005 to 0.1 mm. (5 µm to 100 µm).
While the examiner does not concede that the proposed system lacks a membrane thickness in the weakened areas of at least 5 µm, such a technique is known in the art and is discussed below.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 7, 8, and 12 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Lidgard (US 3,704,807), and further in view Wendling (CA 2752828), Applicant remarked that (inter alia): the proposed combination “is completely silent on and completely fails to teach, disclose or fairly suggest "wherein the membrane is formed from a thermoplastic further comprising a vapor-deposited with a metallic layer". as required by the claim language of amended claim 7
The examiner respectfully notes that amended claim 7 discloses “a thermoplastic further comprising a vapor-deposited
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,” a thermoplastic further comprising a In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1 and 6 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Lidgard (US 3,704,807), Applicant remarked that (inter alia): “(w)ith regard to claims 1 and 6, it is well known and widely understood by those skilled in the art, welding is melting a portion of the membrane material onto/into the base body material, firmly securing the membrane directly onto the base body edge without the addition of a contact bonding material. Welding works best when the membrane comprises material of the base body so materials of both components have similar properties and melting points.”
The examiner respectfully notes the following:
welding is not disclosed in Claim 1, only Claim 6; and
claim 6 discloses that the membrane is welded or bonded, and so the prior art need not disclose “welding”.
Additionally, regarding the limitation “stretched” and limitations directed to how the membrane is “weakened”, a method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, these limitations have not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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, i.e. a membrane comprising weakened areas, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. by local melting of a material using a laser, scribing and embossing. MPEP 2113.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed January 26, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to specification paragraph [0010] is acknowledged. Applicant is thanked from providing citations to two standard dictionaries4, providing support for the definition of “membrane”.
Claim Interpretations
In re Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 11, and 13 – 21, the limitation “thin” has been interpreted as having a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm.
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Berghof Fluoroplastic Technology (hereinafter “Berghof”) (DE 20 2016 000346), in view of Tanaka et al (CN 102195024).
In re Claim 1, Casey et al discloses a degassing unit for a housing (“a battery enclosure” [0056]), the degassing unit (figs 1A – 1C: (100)) [0056 – 0079, 0091 – 0092] comprising:
a membrane (110) formed as a thin, pliable film having at least one layer; and
a base body (124/122) connectable in a “leak-tight” manner [0095] to an edge of a housing opening (annotated, below) of the housing and comprising an exterior side (122), an interior side (annotated, below), and a gas passage opening that is closed by the membrane (110),
“In one embodiment the housing (analogous to applicant’s exterior side (122)) can be changed to accommodate different sealing mechanisms …elements of the housing (analogous to applicant’s exterior side (122)) itself may become part of a sealing mechanism” [0094 - 0096]
Please note that figures 1A, 1B have been interpreted to disclose that the base body (124) comprises an “interior side channel” and an “exterior side channel” such that interior side channel engages the housing and the exterior side channel engages the membrane (110).
wherein the membrane (110) is “leak tightly” connected and affixed5 (apparent) onto the base body (124) at an edge (of the base body 124: “exterior side channel”) surrounding the gas passage opening,
“In one embodiment, the membrane itself may form a sealing mechanism” [0094]
wherein the membrane (110) comprises weakened areas ([0073, 0074, 0077], fig 10A “lines of weakness 1011”) in which mechanical properties of the membrane are weakened by any one or any combination of a local melting of the material using a laser, scribing and embossing into the membrane forming weakened areas having a reduced wall thickness,
“A line of weakness may be formed by any suitable method, including stamping, scoring, etching, indenting, ablation, laser-ablation, or other process designed to weaken a portion of a pressure-retaining membrane.” [0073]
wherein the membrane (110) further comprises a central area interposed between the weakened areas (lines 1011), the central area remaining unweakened (not illustrated), and
“Alternatively, a line of weakness may not be aligned with any piercing mechanism of pressure-applying device” [0073]
“the disclosure further contemplates … multiple lines of weakness that do not intersect” [0077]
Accordingly, while figure 10A discloses that exemplary lines of weakness (1011) that form an X-shape at a center of the membrane, paragraphs [0073 and 0077] have been understood to disclose wherein a central area is not aligned with a centered piercing mechanism (140).
wherein a burst pressure at which the membrane releases the gas passage opening is reduced at least in the weakened areas compared to the central area [0072].
“According to one embodiment, a pressure-retaining membrane may be provided with one or more lines of weakness. In response to an over-pressure situation, the pressure-retaining membrane may be configured to initiate opening along the line of weakness. Thus, a line of weakness may be used to design a pattern along which the pressure-retaining membrane will open”.[0072]
Casey et al discloses various embodiments (figs 7A,B and figs 17A,B) that are connected to form a “leak-tight seal”, such as:
a first gasket (figs 7A-B (715)) may be provided to create a “leak-tight seal” between a membrane (710) and a base body (724) at an edge (728) surrounding a gas passage opening [0108], and a second gasket (750) may be provided to create a “leak-tight seal” between the base body (724) and an edge surrounding a gas passage opening “not illustrated” [0108]; and
a first gasket (figs 17A-B (1713)) may be provided to create a “leak-tight seal” between a membrane (1710) and a base body (1728) at an edge surrounding the gas passage opening, and a second gasket (1725) may be provided to create a “leak-tight seal” between the base body (1728) and an edge surrounding a gas passage opening (at (1724) [0116],
However, Casey et al is silent as to whether:
the membrane (110) formed as a thin, pliable film having at least one layer, the membrane having a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm;
the base body is connectable in a fluid-tight manner to an edge of a housing opening;
the membrane comprises a material of the base body;
the membrane is fluid-tightly connected to the base body.
Berghof discloses a thin membrane (Fig. 1: (1)) for a degassing unit [0001]:
wherein the thin membrane (1) is formed as a thin, pliable film (PTFE [0029]) having a wall thickness of at least 10 µm (0.01 mm) and at most 2000 µm (2.0 mm)
a typical thickness being 300 µm (0.30mm), with
a thickness tolerance of +/-0.01mm to +/-0.5mm6 [0014, 0017];
wherein the thin membrane (1) comprises weakened areas (perforation grooves (10), predetermined tear area (5)), the weakened areas (10) having a reduced wall thickness7 [0056] of 0.15 mm or preferably 0.05 mm (50 µm) thick (at (11)) [0017, 0083], relative to the thin membrane (not weakened) having a wall thickness of 0.3mm [0014, 0017, 0083];
PNG
media_image3.png
257
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
367
884
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein, when the membrane has a 300 µm (0.30mm) wall thickness, a wall thickness is reduced to 50µm (0.05mm) at the weakened areas; and
wherein a minimum groove wall thickness (WN) can be set precisely at a predetermined burst pressure, despite a wide-range tolerance for the membrane thickness (WM), and functioning as a safety component [0060]
It is recognized that Berghof teaches a membrane wall thickness of at least 10 µm and at most 2000 µm, not the claimed range of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Casey et al such that the membrane wall thickness is at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding criticality for the limitation of a membrane wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm, specification paragraph [0070] discloses “the membrane 30 may have a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm. A film with such a wall thickness can be processed favorably during production”. Without disclosure of an associated film material properties and pressure requirements, criticality for the claimed thickness limitations has not been provided.
Tanaka et al teaches a degassing unit for a housing (figs 1, 2: (2)), comprising:
a membrane (3) formed as a thin, film (“metal foil8”) having at least one layer; and
a base body (7) connectable in a fluid-tight manner (“water- tight” [0038]) to an edge of a housing opening of the housing (as seen in fig 2) and comprising an exterior side, an interior side, and a gas passage opening (7A) that is closed by the membrane (3),
wherein the membrane (3) comprises a material (“metal”) of the base body (7) [0038],
“(A) safety valve integrated on the cover plate of the battery can”[0014]
“In addition, selecting a safety valve 3 also can be made of aluminum, nickel and so on other than stainless steel, fluorine, resin such as polyethylene, polypropylene, can be water-tight, the same material, easy engagement with the cover material.” [0038]
“the safety valve used foil is stainless steel… in addition to stainless steel, also can be waterproof, same material plate and easy engagement with the cover material used in selection.” [0046]
wherein the membrane (3) is fluid-tightly (water-tight [0038]) connected and affixed onto the base body (7) at an edge surrounding the gas passage opening (7A) (as seen in fig 2, below),
wherein the membrane (3) is welded to the base body (7)[0038];
PNG
media_image5.png
421
524
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the membrane comprises weakened areas (“groove” fig 8: (55)) in which mechanical properties of the membrane are weakened by any one or any combination of a local melting of the material using a laser, scribing and embossing into the membrane forming weakened areas [0038] having a reduced wall thickness,
wherein the membrane further comprises a central area (fig 8, area circumscribed by (55)) interposed between the weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened, and
wherein a burst pressure at which the membrane releases the gas passage opening is reduced at least in the weakened areas compared to the central area.
“in the safety valve 3, form the flutes on the circular stainless steel sheet through etching process. under the predetermined pressure, break from the groove of the fluted portion beginning and along the flutes. pressure of rupture can be adjusted according to the safety valve 3 of the outer diameter of the flutes of the size of relation. to and back in detail.” [0037], [0045]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Tanaka et al, such that the system comprises:
wherein the membrane comprises a material of the base body;
wherein the membrane is “leak tightly” connected and affixed onto the base body at a surrounding the gas passage opening,
for the benefit of providing an integral structure [0037], simplifying production.
When the teachings of Berghof, and Tanaka et al, are applied to Casey et al, the proposed combination yields a degassing unit for a housing, the degassing unit comprising:
a membrane formed as a thin, pliable film having at least one layer, the membrane having a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm; and
a base body connectable in a fluid-tight manner to an edge of a housing opening of the housing and comprising an exterior side, an interior side, and a gas passage opening that is closed by the membrane,
wherein the membrane comprises a material of the base body,
wherein the membrane is fluid-tightly connected and affixed onto the base body at an edge surrounding the gas passage opening,
wherein the membrane comprises weakened areas in which mechanical properties of the membrane are weakened by any one or any combination of a local melting of the material using a laser, scribing and embossing into the membrane forming weakened areas having a reduced wall thickness,
wherein the membrane further comprises a central area interposed between the weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened, and
wherein a burst pressure at which the membrane releases the gas passage opening is reduced at least in the weakened areas compared to the central area.
In re Claims 2 and 3, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Tanaka et al teaches a central area interposed between weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened. Tanaka et al also teaches an alternative configuration wherein weakened areas (fig 6: (53) of a membrane (33) comprise four lines extending diagonally from the central area to an edge of the membrane
PNG
media_image6.png
243
515
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Tanaka et al teaches that, as “crack propagation direction ...is uniquely determined, so it can reliably rupture pattern of each groove”, the shapes of the weakened areas (flutes) “are not limited to S shape, spiral shape, the shape of the map mark similar to the temple, similar to the shape of letter e”, [0051], and “the configuration of the weakened areas (“flutes”) is based on an inner pressure, temperature, battery voltage and current so that the weakened areas open under a predetermined pressure” [0046, 0052 - 0054].
Upon consideration of the disclosure of Tanaka et al, it would have been obvious to try modifying the proposed system such that it comprises:
wherein the weakened areas of the membrane comprise four lines extending diagonally from the central area to the edge of the membrane9, the central area remains unweakened; or
wherein the weakened areas of the membrane comprise multiple lines extending in a star-shaped manner from the central area to an edge of the membrane10, the central area remains unweakened;
as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claim 4, the proposed system has been discussed (In re Claim 1, above) wherein Berghof teaches the reduced wall thickness of the membrane is reduced to 50 µm. Berghof further teaches:
a “burst pressure is … dependent on the material properties of the membrane 1…and on the minimum wall thickness WN of the membrane. [0064]; and
“a membrane 1 can be reliably provided, the wall thickness WM…nominal value of 0.3 mm (300 µm) … and the perforation groove11 … nominal wall thickness WN of 0.05 mm (50 µm). In typical use situations, such a membrane can have a burst pressure of 3-4 bar at unprocessed locations (WM), whereas in the intended tear region the perforation groove12 tears at a pressure of approximately 1 bar because of the significantly smaller wall thickness” [0083]
While Berghof lacks wherein the reduced wall thickness of the membrane is reduced to at least 5 µm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the proposed combination such that the reduced wall thickness is 5 µm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
While Applicant discloses:
“In the at least one weakened area 46, a thickness of the membrane 30 is locally reduced. In particular, the weakened area 46 may feature, for example, a residual wall thickness of at least 5 µm, preferably of at least 8 µm.”[0023, 0064], and
“In order to meet the burst pressure requirements, the thickness of the membrane is reduced in a local area or mechanical properties of the membrane are weakened such that the membrane may tear at low pressures.” [0043, 0046],
without disclosure of an associated film material properties and pressure requirements, criticality for the claimed thickness limitations has not been provided.
In re Claim 5, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Casey et al discloses that the membrane (110) is formed from a polymer [0069], but is silent as to whether the polymer is from one among polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate.
Tanaka et al teaches wherein:
the base body (2)” may be formed by metal material such as aluminum, stainless steel, for example. However, not limited to the metal material, can also be used without erosion of the electrolyte resin, e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, epoxy resin, polyformaldehyde (POM), polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin such as a battery can.” [0032]
the membrane (3) “can be made of aluminum, nickel and so on other than stainless steel, fluorine, resin such as polyethylene, polypropylene, can be water-tight, the same material, easy engagement with the cover material.” [0038]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the membrane material of the proposed system, as taught by Tanaka et al, such that the material is one among polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate, since 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. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs [0027 – 0028, 0067 – 0069], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re Claim 6, the proposed system has been discussed (In re Claim 1, above), wherein Casey et al discloses (fig 1A) the membrane (110) is a multilayer film (“membrane 110 may be formed from one or more materials, such as polymers, metals, composites, or any combination thereof” [0069]),
wherein at least one layer of the multilayer film (110) is welded or bonded [0093] to the base body and is formed from a material of the base body (120) (“polymer” [0068]); and
wherein a further layer of the multilayer film is a polymer film [0069].
While elastomers are a type of polymer, Casey et al is silent as to whether the further film of the multilayer film [0069] is an elastomer film.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the further film of the multilayer film [0069] is an elastomer film, since 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. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs [0068], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 8 has been cancelled by Applicant.
In re Claim 9, the proposed system has been discussed, but is silent as to whether at least one of the weakened areas (fig 10A: (1011)) is disposed on both sides of the membrane. However, it would have been obvious to try disposing a weakened area on both sides on the membrane, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest. Please note that criticality has not been provided for the claimed limitation [0019].
In re Claim 10, Casey et al discloses wherein the membrane is gas-tight or is semi-permeable so that a passage of gaseous media from an environment into the housing and vice versa is made possible and a passage of liquid media and/or solids is prevented. [0070, 0078]
“For example, a pressure-retaining membrane may be made from a sintered polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or other materials to provide breathability, while preventing other fluids (e.g., water) to pass through.”
In re Claim 11, Casey et al discloses wherein the base body comprises an emergency degassing mandrel (140) disposed on the exterior side and with a tip directed towards the interior side (as seen in fig 1A), the tip being configured to pierce the membrane that is distended towards the exterior side due to an overpressure in the housing [0060 - 0064].
Claim 12 has been cancelled by Applicant.
In re Claim 13, Casey et al discloses wherein the membrane (110) is disposed on the interior side of the base body (as seen in figure 1A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al (US 2022/0099205), in view of Berghof (DE 20 2016 000346), in view of Tanaka (CN 102195024), and further in view of Messing (US 4,064,323).
In re Claim 7, the proposed system has been discussed, but lacks:
wherein the membrane is formed from a thermoplastic further comprising a vapor-deposited metallic layer, and
Messing teaches a composite membrane (16) for a degassing unit (figs 1, 2), the membrane can be made very thin (e.g., under 5 mils thick: col 5, ln 5),
wherein the membrane is a multilayer film formed of two gas pervious plastic layers (18) and a gas impervious layer (22) such as a metal foil between the layers (18),
wherein the gas impervious layer (22) is fractured as at (24) (col 2, ln 65 – 68), and
wherein such a composite may be produced by laminations between layers, or through the use of vapor deposition, sputtering, and electrodeposition to achieve a metal layer on a surface of a plastic layer (col 4, lns 14 – 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Messing, such that the comprises a vapor-deposited with a metallic layer, as vapor disposition is one of plurality of techniques known to prevent lateral transmission of gases between layers, improving overall system safety
Claims 14, 15, 16 and claims 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over LePort et al (US 2013/0059181), in view of Berghof Fluoroplastic Technology (hereinafter “Berghof”) (DE 20 2016 000346).
In re Claim 14, LePort discloses a membrane (fig 5: cell cap (500); fig 9: cell cap assembly (900)) for a degassing unit, wherein the membrane is a flat (as seen in figures 5 or 9) stretched thin pliable film having at least one layer (as cell cap 500 comprises a top portion 515 that “hinges…from scoring 510”, it is apparent that it stretches and is pliable; the same properties are implicit to the cell cap assembly 900), the membrane comprising:
weakened areas [0048, 0050] (fig 5: (510), fig 9: (905)) in which mechanical properties of the membrane are weakened by any one or any combination of a local melting of a material using a laser, scribing and embossing (“scoring…mechanical weakness …introduced through etching, mechanical scribing, lasing” [0048]) into the membrane forming the weakened areas having a reduced wall thickness (“selectively pattern the material to a predetermined depth” [0048]); and
a central area (fig 9, annotated below) interposed between the weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened (no scoring),
PNG
media_image7.png
190
323
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein a burst pressure (“a first pressure”) at which the membrane releases a gas passage opening of the degassing unit is reduced at least in the weakened areas compared to the central area (Claim 10: “portion of said closed case includes a score that predictably fails at a first pressure to release at least a section of said portion of said closed case”).
LePort discloses:
“In general,…embodiments provide mechanical response… by defining a special ejectment structure…(T)he ejectment structure…provides an ejectment aperture…(which) permits ejectment… from a predetermined location… at a predetermined direction” [0041]. Accordingly, it is apparent that the weakened areas will mechanically fail at a comparatively lower burst pressure than areas that are not weakened.
“Once the pressure within the assembly reaches a predefined value, cell cap 500 breaks away to provide an ejectment aperture with a large path for combustion material to exit the cell.” [0048]
“(S)coring (510) is used to insure that a top portion 515 breaks away at the desired location and pressure. Scoring (510) is a mechanical weakness… at a predetermined depth sufficient to mechanically fail at the desired pressure” [0048]. While figure 9 does not explicitly disclose “a burst pressure at which the membrane releases a gas passage opening of the degassing unit is reduced at least in the weakened areas compared to the central area”, it is apparent that this feature would be present in the figure 9 cell cap assembly (900) scoring pattern (905). Please also see paragraph [0054].
Please note that, while the Figure 9 cell cap assembly has been mapped in detail, the Figure 5 cell cap assembly (500) similarly discloses scored areas (510) and a central area without scoring that is encircled by scored areas (510). It is acknowledged that while element (505) is an aperture, it is not an “area weakened by scoring”, as defined in by claim 14.
Regarding the limitation “stretched” and limitations directed to how the membrane is “weakened”, a method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, these limitations have not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, e.g. a membrane comprising weakened areas, does not depend on its method of production, e.g. by local melting of a material using a laser, scribing and embossing. MPEP 2113.
LePort is silent as to whether the membrane (fig 5: (500)) or fig 9: (810)) is “thin” or have a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm.
Berghof teaches a thin membrane (Fig. 1: (1)) for a degassing unit [0001], the thin membrane (1) is formed as a thin, pliable film (PTFE [0029]) having a wall thickness of at least 10 µm (0.01 mm) and at most 2000 µm (2.0 mm);
wherein a typical thickness is 300 µm (0.30mm), with a thickness tolerance of +/-0.01mm to +/ 0.5mm12 [0014, 0017];
wherein the thin membrane (1) comprises weakened areas (perforation grooves (10), predetermined tear area (5)), the weakened areas (10) having a reduced wall thickness13 [0056] of 0.15 mm or preferably 0.05 mm (50 µm) thick (at (11)) [0017, 0083], relative to the thin membrane (not weakened) having a wall thickness of 0.3mm [0014, 0017, 0083];
PNG
media_image3.png
257
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
367
884
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein, when the membrane has a 300 µm (0.30mm) wall thickness, a wall thickness is reduced to 50µm (0.05mm) at the weakened areas; and
wherein a minimum groove wall thickness (WN) can be set precisely at a predetermined burst pressure, despite a wide-range tolerance for the membrane thickness (WM), and functioning as a safety component [0060]
It is recognized that Berghof teaches a membrane wall thickness of at least 10 µm and at most 2000 µm, not the claimed range of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of LePort such that the membrane wall thickness is at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding criticality for the limitation of a membrane wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm, specification paragraph [0070] discloses “the membrane 30 may have a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm. A film with such a wall thickness can be processed favorably during production”. Without disclosure of an associated film material properties and pressure requirements, criticality for the claimed thickness limitations has not been provided.
In re Claims 15 and 16, the proposed system has been discussed, but lacks
wherein the weakened areas of the membrane comprise four lines extending diagonally from the central area to an edge of the membrane; and
wherein the weakened areas of the membrane comprise multiple lines extending in a star-shaped manner from the central area to an edge of the membrane.
However, LePort further discloses (fig 8) weakened areas (805) of a membrane (805) comprising four lines extending diagonally from a central area to an edge of the membrane (805).
PNG
media_image8.png
254
440
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system, as taught by LePort, such that the weakened areas are comprised of
four lines extending diagonally from the central area to an edge of the membrane, or
multiple lines extending in a star-shaped manner from the central area to an edge of the membrane
as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claims 17 – 19, please refer to claims 14 – 16. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). MPEP 2112.01.I
In re Claim 17, see above, In re Claim 14, wherein the prior art discloses a method of manufacturing a membrane for a degassing unit, the method comprising:
providing a membrane formed as a thin, pliable film having at least one layer, the membrane having a wall thickness of at least 30 µm and at most 200 µm;
forming, into the membrane, weakened areas having a reduced wall thickness in which mechanical properties of the membrane are weakened by any one or any combination of a local melting of a material using a laser, scribing and embossing; and
providing, in the membrane, a central area interposed between the weakened areas, the central area remaining unweakened, wherein a burst pressure at which the membrane releases a gas passage opening of the degassing unit is reduced at least in the weakened areas compared to the central area.
In re Claim 18, see above, In re Claim 15, wherein the prior art discloses wherein the weakened areas of the membrane comprise four lines extending diagonally from the central area to an edge of the membrane.
In re Claim 19, see above, In re Claim 16, wherein the prior art discloses wherein the weakened areas of the membrane comprise multiple lines extending in a star-shaped manner from the central area to an edge of the membrane.
Claims 21 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over LePort et al (US 2013/0059181), in view of Berghof Fluoroplastic Technology (hereinafter “Berghof”) (DE 20 2016 000346), and further in view of Messing (US 4,064,323).
In re Claim 21, the proposed system has been discussed (In re Claim 14, above), wherein the modified membrane is formed from at least one thermoplastic (PTFE [0029]14).
However, the proposed system is silent as to whether the membrane further comprises a vapor deposited metallic layer.
Messing teaches a composite membrane (16) for a degassing unit (figs 1, 2), the membrane can be made very thin (e.g., under 5 mils thick: col 5, ln 5),
wherein the membrane is a multilayer film formed of two gas pervious layers (18) and a gas impervious layer (22) such as a metal foil between the layers (18),
wherein the gas impervious layer (22) is fractured as at (24) (col 2, ln 65 – 68), and
wherein such a composite may be produced by laminations between layers, or through the use of vapor deposition, sputtering, and electrodeposition to achieve a metal layer on a surface of a plastic layer (col 4, lns 14 – 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Messing, such that the comprises a vapor-deposited with a metallic layer, as vapor disposition is one of plurality of techniques known to prevent lateral transmission of gases between layers, improving overall system safety
In re Claim 20, please refer to claim 21. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). MPEP 2112.01.I
In re Claim 20, see above, In re Claim 21, wherein the membrane is formed from at least one thermoplastic; and wherein the membrane further comprises a vapor deposited metallic layer.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on T – Th; 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Amended Claim 14
2 Please see paragraphs 31 – 38 of the November 6, 2025 office action.
3 total thickness = 0.00mm (element 35 at 37) + 0.10mm + 0.0005mm + 0.10mm + 0.00mm (element 44 at 45) = 0.205mm
4 Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, understood as © 2026 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, and Collins Dictionary.
5 Affixed (v): “to attach physically, to attach in any way”. © 2026 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
6 tolerance range +/- 0.01mm to +/-0.5mm is +/-10 µm to 500 µm
7 figures 1, 2: membrane wall thickness designated “WM”, weakened wall thickness designated “”WN” [0056]
8 Foil (n): very thin sheet metal. © 2026 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
9 Claim 2
10 Claim 3
11 analogous to the claimed “weakened area”
12 tolerance range +/- 0.01mm to +/-0.5mm is +/-10 µm to 500 µm
13 figures 1, 2: membrane wall thickness designated “WM”, weakened wall thickness designated “”WN” [0056]
14 Berghof (DE 20 2016 000346)
Prosecution Insights