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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (varying flow path lengths), Species D (different taper slopes), Species G (mixed linear and curved profiles), and Species J (circular cross-section / truncated cone) in the reply filed on 08/11/2026 is acknowledged.
The Examiner Notes the species elected were as follows:
Species B - wherein the first flow path and the second flow path have varying lengths (Figs. 6A – 8B; Applicant’s specification at Page 14)
Species D – wherein a slope of the tapered shape of the first flow path and a slope of the tapered shape of the second flow path are different (Figs. 6A – 7B; Applicant’s specification at Pages 14-15)
Species G – wherein the cross-sectional profiles of the first and second flows paths are a mixture of linear and curved lines (Fig. 7A; Applicant’s specification at Page 15)
Species J – wherein the shape of the cross-section perpendicular to the gas discharge direction is circular such that the flow path forms a truncated conical shape (Figs. 4 and 6A-7B; Applicant’s specification at Page 16)
In accordance with the elected species:
Species B – Claim 3 is being interpreted as: “The gas venting device of claim 1, wherein the first flow path and the second flow path have
Species D – Claim 5 is being interpreted as “The gas venting device of claim 4, wherein a slope of the tapered shape of the first flow path and a slope of the tapered shape of the second flow path are
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “the first flow path and having a a cross-sectional area” when it should state “the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area”.
Claim 17 states “a gas venting device according to claim 1” when it should state “the gas venting device according to claim 1”.
Claim 19 states “a gas venting device according to claim 1” when it should state “the gas venting device according to claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim states “…wherein a first discharge guide having a first flow path is inserted into the through hole of the first bracket, and a second discharge guide having a second flow path is inserted into the through hole of the second bracket”.
However, claim 15 depends from claim 1 which recites “…wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises: a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction”.
It is unclear if the “a first flow path” and the “a second flow path” in claim 15 are the same first and second flow paths recited in claim 1 (similar to how claim 12 is written) or if they are new flow paths.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the “a first flow path” and the “a second flow path” in claim 15 to be the same first and second flow paths recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluser et al (DE102018114439A1, using the provided machine English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kluser discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member having a gas discharge flow path (housing 110 having housing passage opening 111 extending from an inlet opening 112 to an outlet opening 113 in Figs. 1 and 3; see entire disclosure and especially P49-50); and
a venting disk coupled to the bracket member, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (semipermeable membrane 120 in Figs. 1 and 3 which is designed to break and/or tear when a predetermined pressure difference is exceeded between the inlet opening 112 and the outlet opening 113; see entire disclosure and especially P2, 49);
wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises: a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Regarding the limitation “to shield the gas discharge flow path”, this is an intended use limitation. The semipermeable membrane of Kluser is provided in the gas discharge flow path and at least partially blocks (since it is a semipermeable membrane) the gas discharge flow path until broken/torn, therefore, it is capable of shielding the gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 3, Kluser discloses wherein the first flow path and the second flow path have different lengths (see annotated Fig. 3 in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kluser discloses wherein cross-sectional profiles defined by two side portions of the first flow path are formed in a tapered shape approaching each other along the gas discharge direction, and cross-sectional profiles of defined by two side portions of the second flow path are formed in a tapered shape moving away from each other along the gas discharge direction.
Regarding claim 11, an interpretation of Kluser can be set forth that is different than the interpretation of claim 1 listed above. Below is a rejection of claims 1 and 11 using this different interpretation.
Kluser discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member, wherein the bracket member has a through hole (battery housing 10 has battery housing opening 12 provided in battery housing wall 11 in Fig. 3; the hollow bracket member can be drawn to the section of the housing wall 11 of battery housing 10 wherein housing 110 is coupled; the through hole of the bracket member can be drawn to housing opening 12; see entire disclosure and especially P47)
the bracket member comprises a discharge guide inserted within the through hole and defines a gas discharge flow path formed therethrough (the discharge guide can be drawn to housing 110 in Figs. 1 and 3; housing 110 has housing passage opening 111 extending from an inlet opening 112 to an outlet opening 113 in Figs. 1 and 3, therefore, housing 110 defines a gas discharge flow path formed therethrough, wherein the gas discharge flow path has an inlet side and an outlet side; see entire disclosure and especially P49-50); and
a venting disk coupled to the bracket member, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (semipermeable membrane 120 in Figs. 1 and 3 which is designed to break and/or tear when a predetermined pressure difference is exceeded between the inlet opening 112 and the outlet opening 113; see entire disclosure and especially P2, 49; the semipermeable membrane 120 is coupled to the battery housing 10’s wall 11 as it lies within the housing 110 coupled to the battery housing 10’s wall 11);
wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises: a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Regarding the limitation “to shield the gas discharge flow path”, this is an intended use limitation. The semipermeable membrane of Kluser is provided in the gas discharge flow path and at least partially blocks (since it is a semipermeable membrane) the gas discharge flow path until broken/torn, therefore, it is capable of shielding the gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 13, Kluser discloses wherein a fastening portion is formed on an outer peripheral surface of the discharge guide (housing 110 has an external thread 114, see Fig. 3, so that the housing 110 can be screwed into the bracket member; see entire disclosure and especially P48).
Regarding the limitation “for fastening the discharge guide to the bracket member”, this is an intended use limitation. The external thread 114 of the housing 110 of Kluser is capable of allowing the discharge guide and bracket member to be fastened together. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
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.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al (US 20170244082 A1) in view of Kluser et al (DE102018114439A1, using the previously provided machine English translation).
Regarding claim 17, Ahn discloses a battery module (battery pack 100 in Fig. 1B) comprising a plurality of secondary batteries (at least one battery cell 10 in Fig. 1B; see in Fig. 1B wherein there are two battery cells 10); and a module frame on which the plurality of secondary batteries are mounted (housing 110 in Fig. 1B), wherein a gas venting device is coupled to one side of the module frame (pressure equalization device 120 coupled to throughhole 111 of housing 110 in Fig. 1B; see entire disclosure and especially P39-40).
However, Ahn does not disclose wherein the gas venting device is the gas venting device according to claim 1.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kluser teaches a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member having a gas discharge flow path (housing 110 having housing passage opening 111 extending from an inlet opening 112 to an outlet opening 113 in Figs. 1 and 3; see entire disclosure and especially P49-50); and
a venting disk coupled to the bracket member to shield the gas discharge flow path, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (semipermeable membrane 120 in Figs. 1 and 3 which is designed to break and/or tear when a predetermined pressure difference is exceeded between the inlet opening 112 and the outlet opening 113; see entire disclosure and especially P2, 49);
wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises: a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Kluser’s gas venting device is taught to be a pressure equalization device to be used for a battery housing including a battery inside (P2-3, 9). Kluser teaches their gas venting device is designed to offer improved safety in the event of a short circuit of a battery located inside the battery housing, as the venting disk (semipermeable membrane) breaks with increased safety when a predetermined differential pressure is exceeded (P30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kluser and substituted the gas venting device of Ahn with the gas venting device of Kluser, given both are known pressure equalization devices used on a battery housing, Kluser discloses their gas venting device is designed to offer improved safety in the event of a short circuit of a battery located inside the battery housing, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 18, Kluser further teaches a sealing ring (160 in Fig. 3) between outer periphery of the bracket member of the gas venting device (110 in Fig. 3) and a battery housing opening (12 in Fig. 3; see entire disclosure and especially P48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the sealing ring disclosed by Kluser within the battery module of modified Ahn, given the gas venting device of Kluser is utilized in the battery module of modified Ahn to be connected to the module frame, and Kluser teaches the connecting between their gas venting device and battery housing opening utilizes a sealing ring. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding the limitation “providing an airtight seal”, this is an intended-use of the sealing member claimed. Given the gas venting device of modified Ahn (provided by Kluser) is desired to have gas flow through its gas discharge flow path, the sealing member (sealing ring) of modified Ahn (provided by Kluser) would be capable of providing an airtight seal such that any gas from the interior of the module frame would not flow outside of the module frame except for through the desired gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 19, Ahn discloses a battery pack (battery pack 100 in Fig. 1B) comprising at least one battery pack case (housing 110 in Fig. 1B) having a plurality of secondary batteries (at least one battery cell 10 in Fig. 1B; see in Fig. 1B wherein there are two battery cells 10); wherein a gas venting device is coupled to one side of the battery pack case (pressure equalization device 120 coupled to throughhole 111 of housing 110 in Fig. 1B; see entire disclosure and especially P39-40).
However, Ahn does not disclose wherein the gas venting device is the gas venting device according to claim 1.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kluser teaches a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member having a gas discharge flow path (housing 110 having housing passage opening 111 extending from an inlet opening 112 to an outlet opening 113 in Figs. 1 and 3; see entire disclosure and especially P49-50); and
a venting disk coupled to the bracket member to shield the gas discharge flow path, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (semipermeable membrane 120 in Figs. 1 and 3 which is designed to break and/or tear when a predetermined pressure difference is exceeded between the inlet opening 112 and the outlet opening 113; see entire disclosure and especially P2, 49);
wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises: a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Kluser’s gas venting device is taught to be a pressure equalization device to be used for a battery housing including a battery inside (P2-3, 9). Kluser teaches their gas venting device is designed to offer improved safety in the event of a short circuit of a battery located inside the battery housing, as the venting disk (semipermeable membrane) breaks with increased safety when a predetermined differential pressure is exceeded (P30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kluser and substituted the gas venting device of Ahn with the gas venting device of Kluser, given both are known pressure equalization devices used on a battery housing, Kluser discloses their gas venting device is designed to offer improved safety in the event of a short circuit of a battery located inside the battery housing, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clift (US 4691729 A) in view of Singh et al (Effect of nozzle geometry on critical-subcritical flow transitions, as given in the 01/08/2024 IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, an interpretation of Clift is set forth below that combines claims 1 and 11.
Clift discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member, wherein the bracket member has a through hole (as seen in Fig. 3, it appears reverse-buckling rupture disk 10 is placed within a cylindrical tubing/piping; the cylindrical tubing/piping having is drawn to the claimed hollow bracket member having a through-hole; see also the annotated Fig. below);
the bracket member comprises a discharge guide inserted within the through hole and defines a gas discharge flow path formed therethrough (the discharge guide is drawn to reverse-buckling rupture disk 10 shown in Figs. 1-4; specifically seen in Fig. 4, the reverse-buckling rupture disk includes a gas discharge flow path formed therethrough (hollow portions); see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract, C3 / L10-16, and C3 / L67 – C4 / L7; see also the annotated Fig. below); and
a venting disk coupled to the bracket member to shield the gas discharge flow path, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (rupture disk 18 which can rupture after being reversed into blade 27 after a predetermined pressure is reached; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and C3 / L10-16);
wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises a first flow path (flow path in annular wall section 15 in Figs. 1-4) and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path (flow path in annular wall section 14 in Figs. 1-4).
Clift discloses their invention relates to safety pressure relief devices (C1 / L17-19).
However, Clift does not disclose wherein the first flow path continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and the second flow path has a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction.
In a similar field of endeavor, Singh teaches nozzles can be used to accelerate gas velocity (Page 2). Singh teaches nozzles have three different sections – converging section, throat and diverging section (as shown in Fig. 1, see Page 2). Singh teaches the point where the diameter of the nozzle is the smallest is called the throat, the section upstream of the throat is the converging section, and the section downstream of throat is the diverging section (Page 2). Singh teaches the area of the converging section decreases as the nozzle profile goes from pipe to the beginning of the throat, and the area of diverging section increases as the nozzle profile goes from the end of the throat to the pipe (Page 2). Singh teaches a basic de Laval nozzle design is a converging-diverging nozzle (Page 4).
Singh teaches a flow velocity of a fluid increases as the fluid enters the nozzle until the throat is reached (Page 2). Singh teaches once fluid flows through the throat, given sufficient upstream pressure and flowrate conditions, the fluid velocity can increase such that it reaches the velocity of sound (Page 2). Singh teaches as the fluid flows out of the throat, entering the diverging section, the fluid velocity increases beyond the speed of sound (Page 2).
While Singh does not teach using the converging-diverging nozzle design in safety pressure relief devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of being able to rapidly discharge gas/pressure as needed in a safety pressure relief device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Singh and modified the gas discharge flow path of Clift such that the first flow path continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and the second flow path has a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction, given Singh teaches a nozzle flow path designed like such can increase the flow velocity of the fluid that flows throughout, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would aid in rapidly relieving pressure through a safety pressure relief device. If a technique has been used to improve one device (use a converging-diverging flow path design for a nozzle in order to increase fluid velocity throughout), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (use a converging-diverging flow path design for a safety pressure relief device in order to increase fluid velocity throughout), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Further, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein the venting disk is installed in a throat portion, the throat portion forming boundary portion of the first flow path and the second flow path (the throat portion of modified Clift is the portion between annular wall sections 15 and 14 and this is where the rupture disk 18 lies; see Clift Figs. 1-4 and also Singh Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein cross-sectional profiles defined by two side portions of the first flow path are formed in a tapered shape approaching each other along the gas discharge direction, and cross-sectional profiles defined by two side portions of the second flow path are formed in a tapered shape moving away from each other along the gas discharge direction (given Singh teaches their converging section, throat and diverging section as shown in Fig. 1 (see Page 2), and this flow path design would be incorporated into Clift via the combination as shown in claims 1 and 11 above; the divergent section of Singh would be the first flow path in Clift, and the convergent section of Singh would be second flow path in Clift).
Regarding claim 5, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein a slope of the tapered shape of the first flow path and a slope of the tapered shape of the second flow path are different (given Singh teaches their converging section, throat and diverging section as shown in Fig. 1 (see Page 2), and this flow path design would be incorporated into Clift via the combination as shown in claims 1 and 11 above; as seen in Fig. 1 of Singh, the slope of the tapered shape of the divergent section of Singh, which would be the first flow path in Clift, is different than the slope of the tapered shape of the convergent section of Singh, which would be second flow path in Clift).
Regarding claim 6, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein the cross-sectional profiles of the two side portions of the first and second flow paths are formed in a linear or curved tapered shape (given Singh teaches their converging section, throat and diverging section as shown in Fig. 1 (see Page 2), and this flow path design would be incorporated into Clift via the combination as shown in claims 1 and 11 above; as seen in Fig. 1 of Singh, the shape of the divergent section of Singh, which would be the first flow path in Clift, appears to be a linear tapered shape while the shape of the convergent section of Singh, which would be second flow path in Clift, appears to be a curved tapered shape).
Regarding claim 7, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein the first flow path has a first truncated conical shape in which the cross-sectional profiles of both side portions are formed in a linear or curved tapered shape, and the second flow path has a second truncated conical shape in which the cross-sectional profiles of the two sides are formed in a linear or curved tapered shape (Clift teaches their reverse-buckling rupture disk 10 has a circular cross-section at the inlet and outlet; Singh teaches their converging section, throat and diverging section as shown in Fig. 1 (see Page 2), and this flow path design would be incorporated into Clift via the combination as shown in claims 1 and 11 above; as seen in Fig. 1 of Singh, the shape of the divergent section of Singh, which would be the first flow path in Clift, appears to be a linear tapered shape while the shape of the convergent section of Singh, which would be second flow path in Clift, appears to be a curved tapered shape; therefore, the first flow path of modified Clift would have a first truncated conical shape in which the cross-sectional profiles of both side portions are formed in a linear tapered shape and the second flow path of modified Clift would have a second truncated conical shape in which the cross-sectional profiles of the two sides are formed in a curved tapered shape).
Regarding claim 10, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein a third flow path having a linear cross-sectional profile defined by two sides is connected to an inlet side of the first flow path (the third flow path can be drawn to the flow path in the section of the cylindrical tubing/piping in Fig. 3 connected to annular wall section 15 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein the discharge guide comprises a first discharge guide inserted into the through hole and defining the first flow path therethrough (the first discharge guide being drawn to annular wall section 15 which would include the first flow path as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above), and a second discharge guide inserted into the through hole and defining the second flow path therethrough (the second discharge guide being drawn to annular wall section 14 which would include the second flow path as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above), wherein the venting disk is coupled between the first discharge guide and the second discharge guide (rupture disk 18 is sandwiched between annular wall sections 15 and 14; see entire disclosure and especially C4 / L4-7).
Regarding the limitation “to shield the gas discharge flow path”, this is an intended use limitation. The rupture disk of Clift is provided in the gas discharge flow path and blocks the gas discharge flow path until broken, therefore, it is capable of shielding the gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 13, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein a fastening portion is formed on an outer peripheral surface of the discharge guide (outer side edges of annular wall sections 15 and 14 that mate with the cylindrical tubing/piping in Fig. 3).
Regarding the limitation “for fastening the discharge guide to the bracket member”, this is an intended use limitation. As seen in Fig. 3 of Clift, the outer side edges of annular wall sections 15 and 14 appear to be set in/mate with the cylindrical tubing/piping, therefore, the discharge guide and the bracket member are capable of being fastened at the outer side edges of annular wall sections 15 and 14. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 14, modified Clift meets the wherein the bracket member comprises: a first bracket located at an inlet side of the gas discharge flow path and having the first flow path, and a second bracket located at an outlet side of the gas discharge flow path and having the second flow path (see the annotated Fig. below), wherein the venting disk is coupled between the first bracket and the second bracket (rupture disk 18 is sandwiched between annular wall sections 15 and 14; given the 1st bracket is the part of the cylindrical tubing/piping corresponding to annular wall section 15 and the 2nd bracket is the part of the cylindrical tubing/piping corresponding to annular wall section 14, it can be said the the venting disk (rupture disk 18) is coupled between the 1st bracket and the 2nd bracket).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Clift Fig. 3
The Examiner notes that the claim does not state that the first bracket and second bracket are separate parts, therefore, they can be integrated as shown in Clift above.
Regarding the limitation “to shield the gas discharge flow path”, this is an intended use limitation. The rupture disk of Clift is provided in the gas discharge flow path and blocks the gas discharge flow path until broken, therefore, it is capable of shielding the gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 15, modified Clift meets the limitation wherein the first bracket and the second bracket each has a through hole (each bracket has a through hole; the Examiner notes that the claim does not state that the first bracket and second bracket are separate parts, therefore, they, and their respective through holes can be an integrated piece as shown in the annotated Clift Fig. 3 in the rejection of claim 14 above),
wherein a first discharge guide having a first flow path is inserted into the through hole of the first bracket (the first discharge guide being drawn to annular wall section 15 which would include the first flow path as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above), and a second discharge guide having a second flow path is inserted into the through hole of the second bracket (the second discharge guide being drawn to annular wall section 14 which would include the second flow path as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above).
Claims 1, 4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khamitkar et al (US 20140053916 A1) in view of Singh et al (Effect of nozzle geometry on critical-subcritical flow transitions, as given in the 01/08/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Khamitkar discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member with a gas discharge flow path (battery box 41’s walls with outlet opening 45 in Fig. 7; the inlet side can be drawn to the side opposite to the side wherein rupture disk apparatus 10 is located in Fig. 7; the outlet side can be drawn to the side wherein rupture disk apparatus 10 is located in Fig. 7; see entire disclosure and especially P52, 54); and
a venting disk coupled to the bracket member, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (rupture disk assembly 10 includes metal membrane layer/disk 12 in Figs. 5 and 7; the membrane/disk 12 has a weakened portion to aid in bursting; see entire disclosure and especially P52-54, 56-57).
Regarding the limitation “to shield the gas discharge flow path”, this is an intended use limitation. The rupture disk assembly of Khamitkar is provided in the gas discharge flow path and blocks the gas discharge flow path until bursting, therefore, it is capable of shielding the gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Khamitkar discloses their gas venting device to be used for lithium battery enclosures or battery boxes (P18). Khamitkar discloses many battery enclosures/boxes necessitates the use of a pressure relief device to protect the enclosure or box against rapid pressure buildup experienced during a catastrophic upset, such as a battery short (P18).
However, Khamitkar does not disclose wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises: a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction.
In a similar field of endeavor, Singh teaches nozzles can be used to accelerate gas velocity (Page 2). Singh teaches nozzles have three different sections – converging section, throat and diverging section (as shown in Fig. 1, see Page 2). Singh teaches the point where the diameter of the nozzle is the smallest is called the throat, the section upstream of the throat is the converging section, and the section downstream of throat is the diverging section (Page 2). Singh teaches the area of the converging section decreases as the nozzle profile goes from pipe to the beginning of the throat, and the area of diverging section increases as the nozzle profile goes from the end of the throat to the pipe (Page 2). Singh teaches a basic de Laval nozzle design is a converging-diverging nozzle (Page 4).
Singh teaches a flow velocity of a fluid increases as the fluid enters the nozzle until the throat is reached (Page 2). Singh teaches once fluid flows through the throat, given sufficient upstream pressure and flowrate conditions, the fluid velocity can increase such that it reaches the velocity of sound (Page 2). Singh teaches as the fluid flows out of the throat, entering the diverging section, the fluid velocity increases beyond the speed of sound (Page 2).
While Singh does not teach using the converging-diverging nozzle design in a gas venting device for a battery enclosure/box, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of being able to rapidly discharge gas/pressure out of a battery enclosure/box when a rapid pressure buildup occurs during a catastrophic upset. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that during such a catastrophic upset, relieving the pressure as fast as possible would aid in limiting the damage caused by the catastrophic upset’s pressure build-up.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Singh and modified the gas discharge flow path of Khamitkar such that it comprises a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction, given Singh teaches a nozzle flow path designed like such can increase the flow velocity of the fluid that flows throughout, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would aid in rapidly relieving pressure from the inside of a battery enclosure/box during a catastrophic upset such as a battery short. If a technique has been used to improve one device (use a converging-diverging flow path design for a nozzle in order to increase fluid velocity throughout), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (use a converging-diverging flow path design for a gas discharge opening for a battery enclosure/box in order to increase fluid velocity throughout), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Further, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Khamitkar meets the limitation wherein cross-sectional profiles defined by two side portions of the first flow path are formed in a tapered shape approaching each other along the gas discharge direction, and cross-sectional profiles defined by two side portions of the second flow path are formed in a tapered shape moving away from each other along the gas discharge direction (see the Examiner’s interpretation of modified Khamitkar below).
PNG
media_image3.png
650
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Interpretation of modified Khamitkar
Regarding claim 16, modified Khamitkar meets the limitation wherein the venting disk (metal membrane layer/disk 12 in Figs. 5 and 7 of Khamitkar) comprises:
a disk outer peripheral portion coupled to the bracket member (peripheral flange 19 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P58); and
a disk inner peripheral portion formed in one piece with the disk outer peripheral portion (central domed portion 21 in Figs. 5 and 7), shielding the gas discharge flow path, the disk inner peripheral portion configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the disk inner peripheral portion (see entire disclosure and especially P56-58);
wherein a notch is formed in the disk inner peripheral portion to rupture when the predetermined pressure is applied to the disk inner peripheral portion (score 18 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P56-57).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13, and 16-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10-11, and 13-16 of copending Application No. 18/578,096 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All of the limitations of claim 1 are met by claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 3 are met by claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 4 are met by claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 5 are met by claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 6 are met by claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 7 are met by claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 11 are met by claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 13 are met by claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 16 are met by claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 17 are met by claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 18 are met by claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
All of the limitations of claim 19 are met by claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/578,096.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13, and 16-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-11, and 13-17 of copending Application No. 18/577,925 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All of the limitations of claim 1 are met by claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 3 are met by claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 4 are met by claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 5 are met by claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 6 are met by claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 7 are met by claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 10 are met by claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 11 are met by claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 13 are met by claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 16 are met by claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 17 are met by claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 18 are met by claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
All of the limitations of claim 19 are met by claims 16-17 of copending Application No. 18/577,925.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stein et al (DE102013210335A1, given in the 02/25/2025 IDS, using the provided machine English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Stein discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member with a gas discharge flow path (flow element 3 having flow channel 6 in Figs. 1-2; see entire disclosure and especially P30); and
a venting disk coupled to the bracket member, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (bursting diaphragm 13 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P29, 31, 34);
wherein the gas discharge flow path comprises: a first flow path that continuously or sequentially decreases in a cross-sectional area of the flow path along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a cross-sectional area of the flow path that continuously or sequentially increases along the gas discharge direction (flow element 3 is designed as a laval nozzle; see entire disclosure and especially P14, 30).
Regarding the limitation “to shield the gas discharge flow path”, this is an intended use limitation. The bursting diaphragm of Stein is provided in the gas discharge flow path and blocks the gas discharge flow path until bursting, therefore, it is capable of shielding the gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 2, Stein discloses a venting disk coupled to the bracket member to shield the gas discharge flow path, and configured to rupture when a predetermined pressure is applied to the venting disk (bursting diaphragm 13 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P29, 31, 34). Stein discloses a throat portion, the throat portion forming a boundary portion of the first flow path and the second flow path (see Fig. 2).
While Stein does not disclose wherein the venting disk is installed in the throat portion, Stein does disclose that the venting disk can be arranged inside gas discharge flow path (flow channel 6; see P34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of Stein such that the venting disk is installed in the throat portion in order to, for example, be able to provide a smaller venting disk (thereby lowering the costs to make the venting disk by needing less materials) since the throat portion of the gas discharge device corresponds to the smallest portion of the gas discharge flow path, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 4, Stein discloses wherein cross-sectional profiles defined by two side portions of the first flow path are formed in a tapered shape approaching each other along the gas discharge direction, and cross-sectional profiles defined by two side portions of the second flow path are formed in a tapered shape moving away from each other along the gas discharge direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Stein discloses wherein a third flow path having a linear cross-sectional profile defined by two sides is connected to an inlet side of the first flow path (see the flow path formed in housing cover 12 connected to the inlet (which would be where the first flow path begins) of flow element 3).
Regarding claim 14, Stein discloses wherein the bracket member comprises: a first bracket located at an inlet side of the gas discharge flow path and having the first flow path, and a second bracket located at an outlet side of the gas discharge flow path and having the second flow path (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
250
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Stein Fig. 2
The Examiner notes that the claim does not state that the first bracket and second bracket are separate parts, therefore, they can be integrated as shown in Stein above.
While Stein does not disclose wherein the venting disk is coupled between the first bracket and the second bracket, Stein does disclose that the venting disk can be arranged inside gas discharge flow path (flow channel 6; see P34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of Stein such that the venting disk is coupled between the first bracket and the second bracket in order to, for example, be able to provide a smaller venting disk (thereby lowering the costs to make the venting disk by needing less materials) since the throat portion/portion between the first bracket and the second bracket corresponds to the smallest portion of the gas discharge flow path, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding the limitation “to shield the gas discharge flow path”, this is an intended use limitation. The bursting diaphragm of Stein is provided in the gas discharge flow path and blocks the gas discharge flow path until bursting, therefore, it is capable of shielding the gas discharge flow path. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights