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 4 in the reply filed on 05/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 read on the elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s IDS (filed 08/30/2024) references prior art cited in parent application 17/714,602. This prior art, including the previously provided English translations for foreign language references, was reviewed from the parent application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
122, as referenced in [0039] of the instant specification;
132, as referenced in [0041] of the instant specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites, “an internal cavity” (line 4) and later “said cavity” (line 9; line 12). Based on the previously provided antecedent basis, “said cavity” should read “said internal cavity”.
Claim 1 recites, “a vent filter collar” (line 9) and later “said vent filter” (line 9, line 13). Based on the previously provided antecedent basis, these later limitation should read “said vent filter collar”. Claims 3 and 7 contains the same language (i.e. “said vent filter”) and should also be changed.
Claim 1 recites “said flow path” (line 11) and later “a flow path” (line 12). It appears that this is a typographical error, which should be changed to read “a flow path” (line 11) and “said flow path” (line 12).
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 1 contains the trademark/trade name “directional flow expanded metal (DFEM)” and “variable expanded metal (VEM)” as evidenced by the attached NPL (ACS Industries Inc; Pgs. 3-6). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an expanded metal sheet and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-12 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, any expanded metal sheet which is capable of altering the direction of the flow path will be interpreted reading on a vent filter comprising “directional flow expanded metal (DFEM) sheet” or “a variable expanded metal (VEM) sheet”, as supported by the instant specification [0035].
Additionally, Claim 1 recites, “an exhaust vent housing formed by a vent base portion and a vent cover portion and, having an internal cavity enclosed by a bottom wall of the vent base portion, a top wall of the vent cover portion, and side walls, said vent cover portion having an exhaust vent in a side wall thereof” (lines 4-6; emphasis added). Here, it is unclear whether the “side walls” are included in the vent base portion, the vent cover portion, or whether they are meant to be a separate structure. Additionally, it is unclear whether “a side wall thereof” is intended to refer to one of the previously recited side walls, or whether this limitation is intended to introduce a new, distinct sidewall. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-12 are rejected as being indefinite. Since it appears that the side walls are a portion of the vent cover portion, and that the side walls are the same as “a side wall thereof” [instant specification: 0034], for the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the side walls are a portion of the vent cover, and that “a side wall thereof” refers to one of the previously recited side walls.
Claim 1 further recites, “said inlet vent port” (line 12; emphasis added). There is no antecedent basis for this limitation. As such, it is unclear what structure is referenced. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-12 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation refers to the previously recited “inlet vent” (line 7). Since the instant specification refers to this structure as a “vent port” [instant specification: 0039], it is suggested that the previously limitation (i.e. line 7) be changed to read “inlet vent port”.
It is further suggested that the recitation “exhaust vent in a side wall thereof” (line 6) be changed to read “exhaust vent openings” to comply with the instant disclosure depicting “openings 38” for this feature [instant specification: 0034], and to remove the verbal overlap between the “exhaust vent openings” (line 6) and “battery exhaust vent” (line 1).
Claim 1 recites, “an elastomeric umbrella valve in said flow path which seals the vent from external airflow” (lines 14-15; emphasis added). There is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the vent”, and therefore it is unclear what structure is referenced. It could be interpreted that “the vent” refers to a “battery exhaust vent” (line 1), “an exhaust vent housing” (line 3), “a vent base portion” (line 3), or “a vent cover portion” (line 3). As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-12 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that “the vent” refers to the “battery exhaust vent”, as supported by the instant specification (Fig. 9; [0041]).
Claims 3 and 7 each recite “said expanded metal sheet”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation, and it is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “a directional flow expanded metal (DFEM) sheet” or “a variable expanded metal (VEM) sheet” or whether Applicant is referring to either type of expanded metal sheet. As such, Claim 3 and dependent Claims 4-6 and 10-12 and Claim 7 and dependent Claims 8-9 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the third interpretation will be applied.
Claims 4 and 8 each recite “wherein the openings in each subsequent layer are positioned so as not to align with holes in a previous layer” (emphasis added). There is no previous antecedent basis for “holes”, and therefore it is unclear whether the referenced “holes” are the same as the previously recited “openings”, or if the holes are intended to refer to distinct structures (e.g. the “holes” of Claim 2). As such, Claims 4 and 8 and dependent Claim 11 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the first interpretation will be applied to the claims as supported by the instant specification [0013-0014], and this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the openings in each subsequent layer are positioned so as not to align with the openings in an adjacent layer”.
Claims 5 and 9 each recite, “wherein said openings have differing sizes and positioning relative to one another” (emphasis added). Here, it is unclear what structure is referenced by the recitation of “relative to one another”. Under a first interpretation, it could be interpreted that a portion of the openings of the expanded metal sheet are different from another portion of openings of the expanded metal sheet. Under a second interpretation, it could be interpreted that each of the openings have a different size and position. Under a third interpretation, it could be interpreted that the openings of one layer of the expanded metal sheet have a different size and position than the openings of another layer of the expanded metal sheet. As such, Claims 5 and 9 and dependent Claim 12 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the third interpretation will be applied, as supported by the instant specification [0013].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhmayer et al. (US-20020000249-A1) in view of Dorresteyn et al. (US-20230066160-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuhmayer discloses an explosion relief valve for confined spaces which is designed to prevent flames from passing through the valve [0002, 0008]. Although Kuhmayer does not explicitly disclose that the explosion relief valve is a “battery exhaust vent for filtering and cooling thermal runaway exhaust gases and slag material from a runaway battery”, the Examiner notes that the intended use of the exhaust filter does not limit the structure of the exhaust filter, and therefore is not given patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02, II). The explosion relief valve disclosed by Kuhmayer is capable of being used in a battery, and thus reads on a “battery exhaust vent for filtering and cooling thermal runaway exhaust gases and slag material from a runaway battery”.
Kuhmayer discloses that the battery exhaust vent (explosion relief valve) comprises:
an exhaust vent housing formed by a vent base portion (valve seat 1, Fig. 2) and a vent cover portion (valve cover 7, Fig. 2) and (see annotation of Kuhmayer Fig. 2, below), having an internal cavity enclosed by a bottom wall of the vent base portion, a top wall of the vent cover portion and side walls (perforated wall 12, Fig. 2; [0024]),
said vent cover portion having an exhaust vent in a side wall thereof (corresponds to perforations in perforated wall 12; [0024]),
said vent base portion having an inlet vent (see annotation of Kuhmayer Fig. 2, below) in the bottom wall thereof;
a battery housing attachment structure (corresponds to screw 2 and corresponding hole; [0020]) on the exhaust vent housing;
a vent filter collar (perforated wall 11; [0022-0023]) contained in said cavity [0014, 0022-0023].
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kuhmayer Fig. 2.
Kuhmayer discloses that the openings and the webs of the expanded metal sheet are designed to influence the flow behavior to create uniform turbulence, thereby enabling cooling while preventing excessive flow resistance [0005, 0008-0009, 0012, 0023]. Therefore, it is understood that the expanded metal filter of Kuhmayer alters the direction of the flow path of exiting gases. As such, the expanded metal filter is interpreted as reading on a vent filter that comprises “a directional flow expanded metal (DFEM) sheet” or “a variable expanded metal (VEM) sheet” (see 112(b) rejection, above).
Kuhmayer further discloses that the vent filter collar has openings (corresponds to perforations of perforation wall 11; [0022-0023]) therein to allow a flow path to pass therethrough [0022-0023].
Kuhmayer also discloses:
wherein the flow path from said inlet vent port into said cavity and out said exhaust vent is directed through said vent filter collar [0022-0023].
Kuhmayer discloses that a closure plate (4, Fig. 2) is placed in the flow path (see Fig. 2). The closure plate is able to be lifted against the force of a spring in order to open the valve opening and allow explosion gases flow out of the exhaust vent [0023]. Kuhmayer also discloses that various changes can be made to the specific embodiments disclosed [0028].
Although Kuhmayer does not teach that the closure plate is an umbrella valve, Dorresteyn teaches that a spring-loaded valve and an umbrella valve are substitutable alternatives of a pressure relief valve [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the closure plate and spring disclosed by Kuhmayer (i.e. the spring-loaded valve) for an umbrella valve with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful exhaust vent. Umbrella valves are understood to necessarily formed of elastomers.
Accordingly, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious:
an elastomeric umbrella valve in said flow path which seals the vent from external airflow but allows quick venting for internal gas pressure during a runaway event or excessive heating [0023].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhmayer et al. (US-20020000249-A1) in view of Dorresteyn et al. (US-20230066160-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Baldwin et al. (US-20160372726-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the exhaust vent comprises a battery house attachment (corresponds to screw 2 and corresponding hole; see rejection of Claim 1, above). Although Kuhmayer discloses that the battery house attachment includes a screw (2, Fig. 2) and a hole (see Fig. 2; [0020]), Kuhmayer does not teach that the hole of the battery attachment is provided in a flange.
Baldwin teaches that a filtering device (76, Fig. 4) can include tabs (92, Figs. 4-5) around its perimeter in order to successfully secure the filtering device to an exterior surface (94, Fig. 4) using mechanical fasteners (96, Fig. 4) [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the battery house attachment taught by modified Kuhmayer (i.e. the screw and the hole) for the battery house attachment taught by Baldwin (i.e. tabs and mechanical fasteners) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in the successful attachment of the exhaust filter of modified Kuhmayer to a substrate (MPEP 2143, B). The tabs rendered obvious by modified Kuhmayer read on “a flange with holes therein”. The limitation “for connection to a battery housing” is an intended use limitation. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious that the flange with holes therein is capable of attaching to a substrate, and therefore the intended use limitation is met.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhmayer et al. (US-20020000249-A1) in view of Dorresteyn et al. (US-20230066160-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Greenwood et al. (US-20090184504-A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Kuhmayer discloses that there is “at least one” perforated wall 11 (reads on expanded metal sheet) [0022]. Kuhmayer further discloses that the expanded metal sheet is “known per se”, and that the webs and perforated openings may be shaped as required such that explosion gases are better able to cool down [0022]. Kuhmayer does not explicitly discloses that the vent filter collar is formed from multiple overlying layers of expanded metal sheet.
Greenwood teaches a multi-layer tubular vent formed of expanded metal [Abstract, 0004-0005, 0038, 0133]. Greenwood teaches that each layer can be optimized based on the desired gas flow behavior [0133]. For instance, an innermost layer can have larger opening, an intervening layer can smaller openings, and an outer layer can have larger openings again [0133]. Greenwood teaches that such a configuration achieves diffusion at the outer surface of the filter, and that including a layer with smaller openings and/or a fine pitch (i.e. the distance between adjacent openings [0125]) can increase particle retention [0133, 0135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the vent filter collar of modified Kuhmayer to be formed from multiple overlying layers of expanded metal sheet as required by Claim 3, wherein the openings of each layer have differing sizes and positions relative to one another as required by Claim 5, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful vent filter collar capable of achieving diffusion and successfully trapping particles from explosion gases.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the openings of each layer have differing sizes and positions (see rejection of Claims 3 and 5, above). Modified Kuhmayer does not explicitly teach that the openings in each subsequent layer are positioned so as not to align with holes in a previous layer.
Greenwood teaches that creating a zig-zag path for gas flow in the filter results increased particle trapping, and forces changes in direction and velocity [0137-0142]. Greenwood also teaches that by keeping the gas in contact with filter surfaces longer more heat energy can be exchanged, and increased cooling of the gases occurs [0163].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the openings in each subsequent layer such that they do not align with holes in a previous layer in order to form a zig-zag path for gas flow, thereby increasing particle trapping and promoting cooling of the escaping gases.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhmayer et al. (US-20020000249-A1) in view of Dorresteyn et al. (US-20230066160-A1), as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Kusunoki et al. (US-20150072184-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the exhaust vent includes an umbrella valve (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Kuhmayer discloses that various changes can be made to the specific embodiments disclosed [0028]. Modified Kuhmayer does not teach a pressure equalization membrane.
Kusunoki teaches a pressure valve (150) in the form of an umbrella valve [0085]. In addition to the umbrella valve, Kusunoki teaches that a functional membrane (160) is disposed closer to the interior space and allows passage of gas while prohibiting passage of liquid [0085]. When the umbrella valve is opened, the functional membrane allows gas to be released from the interior space [0086, 0093]. Advantageously, the addition of a functional membrane prevents water from entering the interior space, even when a given water pressure is applied [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a functional membrane (reads on pressure equalization membrane) as taught by Kusunoki to the exhaust vent of modified Kuhmayer with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful exhaust vent capable of preventing liquid from entering while allowing gases to escape.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhmayer et al. (US-20020000249-A1) in view of Dorresteyn et al. (US-20230066160-A1) and in view of Baldwin et al. (US-20160372726-A1) as applied to Claim 2, above, in view of Greenwood et al. (US-20090184504-A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Kuhmayer discloses that there is “at least one” perforated wall 11 (reads on expanded metal sheet) [0022]. Kuhmayer further discloses that the expanded metal sheet is “known per se”, and that the webs and perforated openings may be shaped as required such that explosion gases are better able to cool down [0022]. Kuhmayer does not explicitly discloses that the vent filter collar is formed from multiple overlying layers of expanded metal sheet.
Greenwood teaches a multi-layer tubular vent formed of expanded metal [Abstract, 0004-0005, 0038, 0133]. Greenwood teaches that each layer can be optimized based on the desired gas flow behavior [0133]. For instance, an innermost layer can have larger opening, an intervening layer can smaller openings, and an outer layer can have larger openings again [0133]. Greenwood teaches that such a configuration achieves diffusion at the outer surface of the filter, and that including a layer with smaller openings and/or a fine pitch (i.e. the distance between adjacent openings [0125]) can increase particle retention [0133, 0135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the vent filter collar of modified Kuhmayer to be formed from multiple overlying layers of expanded metal sheet as required by Claim 7, wherein the openings of each layer have differing sizes and positions relative to one another as required by Claim 9, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful vent filter collar capable of achieving diffusion and successfully trapping particles from explosion gases.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the openings of each layer have differing sizes and positions (see rejection of Claims 7 and 9, above). Modified Kuhmayer does not explicitly teach that the openings in each subsequent layer are positioned so as not to align with holes in a previous layer.
Greenwood teaches that creating a zig-zag path for gas flow in the filter results increased particle trapping, and forces changes in direction and velocity [0137-0142]. Greenwood also teaches that by keeping the gas in contact with filter surfaces longer more heat energy can be exchanged, and increased cooling of the gases occurs [0163].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the openings in each subsequent layer such that they do not align with holes in a previous layer in order to form a zig-zag path for gas flow, thereby increasing particle trapping and promoting cooling of the escaping gases.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhmayer et al. (US-20020000249-A1) in view of Dorresteyn et al. (US-20230066160-A1) and in view of Greenwood et al. (US-20090184504-A1), as applied to Claims 3, 4, and 5, above, and in further view of Kusunoki et al. (US-20150072184-A1).
Regarding Claims 10-12, modified Kuhmayer renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the exhaust vent includes an umbrella valve (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Kuhmayer discloses that various changes can be made to the specific embodiments disclosed [0028]. Modified Kuhmayer does not teach a pressure equalization membrane.
Kusunoki teaches a pressure valve (150) in the form of an umbrella valve [0085]. In addition to the umbrella valve, Kusunoki teaches that a functional membrane (160) is disposed closer to the interior space and allows passage of gas while prohibiting passage of liquid [0085]. When the umbrella valve is opened, the functional membrane allows gas to be released from the interior space [0086, 0093]. Advantageously, the addition of a functional membrane prevents water from entering the interior space, even when a given water pressure is applied [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a functional membrane (reads on pressure equalization membrane) as taught by Kusunoki to the exhaust vent of modified Kuhmayer with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful exhaust vent capable of preventing liquid from entering while allowing gases to escape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights