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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2023 was filed prior to the mailing date of the mailing of this action. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Drawings New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(h) (3) are required in this application because “hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object...”, see MPEP 608.02, see 37 CFR 1.84(n) chart IX, applicant’s drawings do not distinguish between material differences such as rubber, and metal. Applicant is advised that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES Replacement Drawing Sheets Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified. Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin. Annotated Drawing Sheets A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. Timing of Corrections Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application. If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para. 0065, “Therby, thigth sealing”, should be , - -Thereby, tight sealing - - . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 , 3, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Casey et al. (US 2022 /0099205). Regarding claim 1, Casey et al. disclose a degassing unit (1220) for an electronics case (para.001 , para.0091 ) , the degassing unit comprising: a base body (1220) attachable to the electronics case and configured to seal against a perimeter of an aperture (the opening in 580, see Fig. 5C, see para. 0122, “it is contemplated that the particular features in any one embodiment can be substituted for, or replaced with, the features of any other embodiment (even though such a particular embodiment may not be explicitly disclosed)” , see also para.0095 ) in the electronics case, the base body comprising a degassing opening (the opening in 1220 that 1214,1232 and 1240 are installed within, see Fig. 12B) ; a membrane (1214) covering the degassing opening of the base body and comprising at least one segmentation line (at least 6 lines are shown) penetrating through the membrane; and at least one support rib (1232) abutting adjacent segments of the membrane along the at least one segmentation line (as shown in Figures 12B,C) , wherein each of the membrane and the at least one support rib has a convex shape (as shown in Figures 12B,C, the shapes are convex), facing away from the base body. Regarding claim 3, Casey et al. disclose the at least one segmentation line ends in a V-shaped bifurcation arranged at a radially outer end of the at least one segmentation line (as shown in amended figure 12D below) . The lines drawn below follow the V-shaped part of the upper opening. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2125. Here, the drawings clearly show a V-shaped bifurcation arranged at a radially outer end of the at least one segmentation line in the Casey et al. reference. Regarding claim 7, Casey et al. disclose a protective cover (322) attached to the base body (324), see para. 0122, “it is contemplated that the particular features in any one embodiment can be substituted for, or replaced with, the features of any other embodiment (even though such a particular embodiment may not be explicitly disclosed)”, see also para.0095) . Regarding claim 8, Casey et al. disclose wherein the membrane is clamped between the base body and the protective cover , as shown in Fig. 3B, see para. 0122, “it is contemplated that the particular features in any one embodiment can be substituted for, or replaced with, the features of any other embodiment (even though such a particular embodiment may not be explicitly disclosed)”, see also para.0095). Regarding claim 12, Casey et al. disclose an electronics case (para.0091) comprising: the degassing unit of claim 1; and the aperture, wherein the degassing unit is arranged at the aperture (the opening in 580, see Fig. 5C, see para. 0122, “it is contemplated that the particular features in any one embodiment can be substituted for, or replaced with, the features of any other embodiment (even though such a particular embodiment may not be explicitly disclosed)”, see also para.0095) . 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. 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. Claim(s) 2 ,5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (US 20220099205 ) . Regarding claim 2 , Casey et al. disclose that in an unloaded state of the membrane, a gap between the at least one support rib and the membrane is formed , although is silent that the gap measures at least 0.3 mm and at most 1.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap measuring at least 0.3 mm and at most 1.2 mm, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Regarding claim 5, Casey et al. disclose the at least one segmentation line comprises two segmentation lines penetrating through the membrane, although is silent to having two support ribs abutting adjacent segments of the membrane along the two segmentation lines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one support rib comprises two support ribs abutting adjacent segments of the membrane along the two segmentation lines, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza ,274 F.2d 669,124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 9, Casey et al. disclose that the membrane has a thickness, although is silent to having a thickness of the membrane is at least 1.5 mm and at most 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the membrane is at least 1.5 mm and at most 3 mm, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (US 20220099205) in view of Lenz et al. (US 20230103100) . Regarding claim 6, Casey et al. disclose the membrane is attached although is silent to disclosing how the membrane is glued or welded to the base body . Lenz et al. teach that the membrane (40) is glued or welded to the base body (10,22) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize gluing or welding as taught by Lenz et al. onto the device of Casey et al. to have the membrane is glued or welded to the base body, in order to be able to restore the connection between the membrane and the housing after the critical pressure has been reached to have a reparable device (para.0113 Lenz et al.). Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (US 20220099205) in view of Abal (US 9011370) . Regarding claims 10 and 11, Casey et al. disclose the membrane although is silent to the type of material where, the membrane is made of silicone rubber, and a hardness of the membrane is at least 40 Shore A and at most 60 Shore A. Abal teaches that the membrane (102) is made of silicone rubber, and a hardness of the membrane is at least 40 Shore A and at most 60 Shore A (col.6, lns. 50-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize gluing or welding as taught by Lenz et al. onto the device of Casey et al. to have the membrane is glued or welded to the base body, in order to be able to restore the connection between the membrane and the housing after the critical pressure has been reached to have a reparable device (para.0113 Lenz et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the membrane being made of silicone rubber, and a hardness of the membrane is at least 40 Shore A and at most 60 Shore A , 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Claim(s) 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devitt (US 4052534) in view of Casey et al. (US 20220099205). Regarding claim 13, Devitt discloses an electronics case (13) , wherein the electronics case further comprises: a second aperture (one of the apertures within 14, 13, see Figures 1 and 2) ; and a gas permeable plug (11) covering the second aperture. Devitt discloses all of the features of the claimed invention although is silent to having in claim 14, a cross section of the aperture covered by the degassing unit is larger than a cross section of the second aperture covered by the gas permeable plug , and the valve device in claims 12 and 1. Casey et al. teaches the use of the valve of claims 1 and 12 as disclosed above , and a cross section of the aperture covered by the degassing unit is larger than a cross section of the second aperture covered by the gas permeable plug (para.0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the valve as taught by Casey et al. into the device of Devitt top have a cross section of the aperture covered by the degassing unit is larger than a cross section of the second aperture covered by the gas permeable plug, and the valve device in claims 12 and 1 , in order to vent the pressure more quickly with a larger and more immediate opening than may be achieved by conventional devices (para.0 005, Casey et al.). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious, “ t he at least one support rib comprises branches running along the V-shaped bifurcation” in combination with claim 3 from which claim 4 depends, and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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. 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) Form at Form at; https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form . /CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753