****THIS NON-FINAL REJECTION REPLACES
THE NON-FINAL REJECTION DATED 08/20/2026***
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Upon review of the Non-Final Rejection dated 08/20/2026 a few errors were found. Therefore, the Examiner has created this Non-Final Rejection to correct the issues. This Non-Final Rejection replaces the Non-Final Rejection dated 08/20/2026.
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 with traverse of Species B, D, G, and I in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The Action identifies the shared technical feature as the gas venting device of claim 1, including "wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path." The Action alleges that Kluser's (DE102018114439) semipermeable membrane 120 is "installed on the inlet side of the gas discharge flow path." Kluser therefore does not disclose the outlet-side venting disk required by claim 1. Hence, the requirement for election of species should accordingly be withdrawn”.
This is not found persuasive. Upon review of the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 06/04/2026, it has been found that Page 6 includes a typographical error in stating “wherein the venting disk is installed on the inlet side of the gas discharge flow path”. This should state “wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path” because, as seen in Fig. 1 of Kluser (an annotated version is provided below), the semipermeable membrane 120, drawn to the claimed venting disk, is installed on the side of the gas venting device wherein outlet opening 113 lies. Therefore, the technical feature noted in the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 06/04/2026 is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kluser.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 1
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The Examiner Notes the species elected were as follows:
Species B - wherein the first flow path and the second flow path have different lengths (Figs. 5A – 6B; Applicant’s specification at Page 21)
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. 5A – 6B; Applicant’s specification at Page 22)
The Examiner notes that in the Requirement for Restriction/Election, Page 4 stated that Species D were drawn to the slopes of the first flow path and the second flow path are the same. However, Species D was drawn to Figs. 5A-6B which show the slopes of the first flow path and the second flow path are different. Therefore, Species D is drawn to wherein the slopes of the first flow path and the second flow path are different.
Species G – wherein the cross-sectional profiles of the first and second flows paths are a mixture of linear and curved lines (Fig. 6A; Applicant’s specification at Pages 22-23)
Species I – 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. 3A-6B; Applicant’s specification at Pages 24-25)
In accordance with the elected species:
Species B – Claim 2 is being interpreted as: “The gas venting device of claim 1, wherein the first and second flow paths are of
Species D – Claim 4 is being interpreted as “The gas venting device of claim 3, 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.”
Claims 7-8 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/03/2026.
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 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 states “a gas venting device according to claim 1” when it should state “the gas venting device according to claim 1”.
Claim 15 states “the outer periphery of the as venting device” when it should state “an outer periphery of the gas venting device”.
Claim 16 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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "both side portions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Side portions have not been set forth in claim 1 of which claim 9 depends, therefore, it is unclear what “side portions” are “both side portions”.
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 1-2 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluser et al (DE102018114439A1, using the previously provided machine English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kluser discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member with a gas discharge flow path having an inlet side and an outlet side (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 flow path cross-section along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a flow path cross-section that increases continuously or sequentially along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below),
wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path (see the annotated Fig. below; see Kluser Fig. 1, wherein the semipermeable membrane 120 is installed on the side of the housing passage opening 111 adjacent to/near outlet opening 113).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
967
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Regarding claim 2, Kluser discloses wherein the first and second flow paths are of different lengths (see annotated Fig. 3 in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kluser discloses wherein a flow path having a linear cross-sectional profile on both side portions is connected to the inlet side of the first flow path (see the annotated Fig. 3 below; two sections are highlighted by boxes in the annotated figure; the first section is a section of the first flow path that has a linear cross-sectional profile on both side portions (as both side walls are linear); the second section is a section of the second flow path that has a linear cross-sectional profile on both side portions (as both side walls in this section are linear); both of these two boxed-in sections are connected to the inlet side of the first flow path, as the first section is a middle section of the first flow path and the second section is connected to the inlet of side of the first flow path through the first flow path itself).
PNG
media_image3.png
414
982
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Regarding claim 10, 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 10 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, wherein the gas discharge flow path has an inlet side and an outlet side (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 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 flow path cross-section along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a flow path cross-section that increases continuously or sequentially along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below),
wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path, wherein the venting disk is coupled to the bracket member and the discharge guide at the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path of the discharge guide to shield the gas discharge flow path (see the annotated Fig. below; see Kluser Fig. 1, wherein the semipermeable membrane 120 is installed on the side of the housing passage opening 111 adjacent to/near outlet opening 113; the semipermeable membrane 120 can be considered coupled to the bracket member and the discharge guide (housing 110) because it sits within the discharge guide on mounting flange 116 and is covered by housing cover 140, and the discharge guide (housing 110) is screwed into the bracket member; see entire disclosure and especially P48-49).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
967
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Regarding claim 11, 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).
Regarding claim 12, Kluser discloses wherein the bracket member and the discharge guide are coupled together by threading (housing 110 has an external thread 114, see Fig. 3, so that the housing 110 can be threaded/screwed into the bracket member; see entire disclosure and especially P48).
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 14-16 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 14, 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 according to claim 1. Kluser teaches a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member with a gas discharge flow path having an inlet side and an outlet side (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 flow path cross-section along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a flow path cross-section that increases continuously or sequentially along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below),
wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path (see the annotated Fig. below; see Kluser Fig. 1, wherein the semipermeable membrane 120 is installed on the side of the housing passage opening 111 adjacent to/near outlet opening 113).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
967
media_image2.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 15, 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 16, 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 according to claim 1. Kluser teaches a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member with a gas discharge flow path having an inlet side and an outlet side (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 flow path cross-section along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a flow path cross-section that increases continuously or sequentially along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below),
wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path (see the annotated Fig. below; see Kluser Fig. 1, wherein the semipermeable membrane 120 is installed on the side of the housing passage opening 111 adjacent to/near outlet opening 113).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
967
media_image2.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 1-6 and 13 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 01/10/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Khamitkar discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member with a gas discharge flow path having an inlet side and an outlet side (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 to shield the gas discharge flow path, 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);
wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path (see Fig. 7).
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 flow path cross-section along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a flow path cross-section that increases continuously or sequentially along the gas discharge.
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 flow path cross-section along the gas discharge direction and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a flow path cross-section that increases continuously or sequentially along the gas discharge, 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 2, modified Khamitkar meets the limitation wherein the first and second flow paths are different lengths (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 Khamitkar via the combination as shown in claims 1 and 11 above; the divergent section of Singh would be the first flow path in modified Khamitkar, and the convergent section of Singh would be second flow path in modified Khamitkar; as seen in Fig. 1 of Singh, the divergent section of Singh is of a different length than the convergent section of Singh).
Regarding claim 3, 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 (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 Khamitkar via the combination as shown in claims 1 and 11 above; the divergent section of Singh would be the first flow path in modified Khamitkar, and the convergent section of Singh would be second flow path in modified Khamitkar).
Regarding claim 4, modified Khamitkar 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 Khamitkar 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 modified Khamitkar, is different than the slope of the tapered shape of the convergent section of Singh, which would be second flow path in modified Khamitkar).
Regarding claim 5, modified Khamitkar 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 Khamitkar 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 modified Khamitkar, appears to be a linear tapered shape while the shape of the convergent section of Singh, which would be second flow path in modified Khamitkar, appears to be a curved tapered shape).
Regarding claim 6, modified Khamitkar 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 (Khamitkar discloses their rupture disk apparatus 10 is circular, see Fig. 7, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe/understand the battery box 41’s wall opening (drawn to the claimed hollow bracket member’s gas discharge flow path) is also circular in shape; 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 Khamitkar 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 modified Khamitkar, appears to be a linear tapered shape while the shape of the convergent section of Singh, which would be second flow path in modified Khamitkar, appears to be a curved tapered shape; therefore, the first flow path of modified Khamitkar 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 Khamitkar 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 13, 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 1-6, 9, and 13-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 16-19 of copending Application No. 18/577,520 in view of Kluser et al (DE102018114439A1, using the previously provided machine English translation).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
All of the limitations of claim 1 are met by claim 1 of the 18/577,520 application with the exception of the gas discharge flow path having an inlet and outlet side wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path.
This subject matter is met by reference Kluser et al (DE102018114439A1, using the previously provided machine English translation).
Kluser discloses a gas venting device comprising:
a hollow bracket member with a gas discharge flow path having an inlet side and an outlet side (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 flow path cross-section along the gas discharge direction, and a second flow path formed adjacent the first flow path and having a flow path cross-section that increases continuously or sequentially along the gas discharge direction (see the annotated Fig. below),
wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path (see the annotated Fig. below; see Kluser Fig. 1, wherein the semipermeable membrane 120 is installed on the side of the housing passage opening 111 adjacent to/near outlet opening 113).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
967
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kluser Fig. 3
Kluser teaches their semipermeable membrane prevents moisture from penetrating into an interior of a designated path it is placed upon while also being configured to break or tear when a predetermined pressure between an inlet opening and outlet opening of the gas venting device’s gas discharge flow path is exceeded (P2, 7, 13, 49).
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 provide to the construct of the 18/577,520 application wherein the gas discharge flow path has an inlet and outlet side and wherein the venting disk is installed on the outlet side of the gas discharge flow path, given Kluser teaches the construct and that it achieves the predictable, desirable results of providing a semipermeable membrane (venting disk) to prevent moisture from penetrating into the interior of the gas discharge flow path while also being able to break or tear when a predetermined pressure between an inlet opening and outlet opening of the gas venting device’s gas discharge flow path is exceeded.
All of the limitations of claims 2-6, 9, and 13-16 of the instant application can be met by claims 3-7, 10, and 16-19 of the copending Application No. 18/577,520.
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