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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 31 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 15 Jan 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 27 Feb 2026 and 8 April 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Vernet (US 6412512).
Regarding Claim 1, Vernet discloses a safety valve (Figure 3). The valve comprising:
a main body (2) including a discharge port (see Annotated Figure A) that is in contact with an external environment (external to the denoted by the “E” in Figure 3), and
a flow path (from the interior of the tank 3 to the discharge port of Annotated Figure A) that allows an opening of a tank body and the external environment to communicate with each other via the discharge port (Figure 3); and
a valve (5) that is provided at the flow path (Figure 3), and configured to close the flow path at a normal time (shown in Figure 3), and open the flow path at a time of abnormally high temperature or abnormality detection (shown in Figure 4),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein a total opening area of the discharge port is 0.008 to 5.5 mm2.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discharge port of Vernet with a total opening area of 0.008 to 5.5 mm2 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the discharge port of Vernet would not operate differently with the claimed port dimensions since the discharge port of Vernet functions in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed discharge port.
PNG
media_image1.png
609
1098
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Regarding Claim 2, Vernet discloses where the valve (5) includes an openable portion (the flap itself of valve 5) that is opened by driving an opening means (20) provided in the flow path (by driving 20 as seen in Figure 4), and
the opening means (20) is provided downstream of the openable portion in the flow path (Figures 3-4), and
configured to open the openable portion using energy obtained by igniting an explosive as a drive source (via 27; Col 4, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 15, Vernet discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the total opening area of the discharge port is 0.08 to 3.2 mm2.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discharge port of Vernet with a total opening area of 0.08 to 3.2 mm2 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the discharge port of Vernet would not operate differently with the claimed port dimensions since the discharge port of Vernet functions in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed discharge port.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Vernet (US 6412512) in view of Denker et al (US 4970936).
Regarding Claim 3, Vernet discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the opening means is an igniter that is activated by flowing a current as the explosive, and the openable portion includes a cylinder provided in a direction intersecting the flow path and a piston member that is slidably provided in the cylinder, and configured to close the flow path in an initial state, and slide by a pressure wave obtained by igniting the igniter when the igniter is activated to open the flow path.
Denker et al teach a safety valve (Figure 1) with an opening means (24), where the opening means is an igniter (24) that is activated by flowing a current as the explosive (Col 3, lines 9-23), and the openable portion (21 and 16) includes a cylinder (17) provided in a direction intersecting the flow path (intersection 27 as seen in Figure 1) and a piston member (21) that is slidably provided in the cylinder (Figure 1), and configured to close the flow path in an initial state (shown in Figure 1), and slide by a pressure wave obtained by igniting the igniter when the igniter is activated to open the flow path (Col 3, lines 9-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening means and openable portion of Vernet with the opening means and openable portion as taught by Denker et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the igniter, cylinder and piston of Denker et al with the system of Vernet) to yield predictable results (to open the valve when the opening means is ignited).
Regarding Claim 4, Vernet discloses where the openable portion (the flap of valve 5) is a plate-shaped member (Figures 3-4) that is configured to close the flow path (Figure 3), but fails to expressly disclose where the plate-shaped member is configured to be melted, broken, or cleaved by energy obtained by igniting the explosive.
Denker et al teach a safety valve (Figure 1) with a plate-shaped member (16), where the plate-shaped member is configured to be melted, broken, or cleaved by energy obtained by igniting the explosive (Col 3, lines 3-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plate shaped member of Vernet with the member as taught by Denker et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the member of Denker et al with the system of Vernet) to yield predictable results (to open the valve when the opening means is ignited).
Regarding Claim 12, Vernet discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the opening means (21) includes a moving body including a protrusion that is fired toward the openable portion (16; Col 2, line 65-Col 3, line 23) by a pressure wave obtained by igniting the explosive (Col 2, line 65-Col 3, line 23), and the protrusion of the moving body is configured to, when activated, break or cleave the openable portion to open the openable portion (Col 2, line 65-Col 3, line 23).
Denker et al teach a safety valve (Figure 1) where the opening means (includes a moving body including a protrusion that is fired toward the openable portion by a pressure wave obtained by igniting the explosive, and the protrusion of the moving body is configured to, when activated, break or cleave the openable portion to open the openable portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening means of Vernet with the opening means as taught by Denker et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the member of Denker et al with the system of Vernet) to yield predictable results (to open the valve when the opening means is ignited).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Vernet (US 6412512) in view of Smith et al (US 8851197).
Regarding Claim 5, Vernet discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the opening means further includes an auto-ignition agent that is configured to ignite automatically at a predetermined temperature or higher that is lower than an ignition temperature of the explosive to ignite the explosive.
Smith et al disclose a safety device (Figure 5C) with an auto-ignition agent (100) that is configured to ignite automatically at a predetermined temperature or higher that is lower than an ignition temperature of the explosive to ignite the explosive (Col 2, lines 40-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vernet with the system as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of providing fire sensing over a large are, as taught by Smith et al (abstract).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Vernet (US 6412512) in view of Shirk et al (US 6196584).
Regarding Claim 6, Vernet discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the openable portion is formed of a metal soluble at the time of the abnormally high temperature.
Shirk et al teach a safety valve (Figure 2) with an openable portion (36) where the openable portion is formed of a metal soluble at the time of the abnormally high temperature (Col 4, lines 21-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the openable portion of Vernet with the openable portion as taught by Shirk et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the member of Shirk et al with the system of Vernet) to yield predictable results (to open the valve when the opening means is ignited).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Vernet (US 6412512) in view of Denker et al (US 4970936) in further view of Smith et al (US 8851197).
Regarding Claim 13, Vernet, as modified by Denker et al, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the opening means further includes an auto-ignition agent that is configured to ignite automatically at a predetermined temperature or higher that is lower than an ignition temperature of the explosive to ignite the explosive.
Smith et al disclose a safety device (Figure 5C) with an auto-ignition agent (100) that is configured to ignite automatically at a predetermined temperature or higher that is lower than an ignition temperature of the explosive to ignite the explosive (Col 2, lines 40-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vernet with the system as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of providing fire sensing over a large are, as taught by Smith et al (abstract).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Cockram et al (US 2736459).
Regarding Claim 1, Cockram et al disclose a safety valve (Figure 1), comprising: a main body (29) including a discharge port (32) that is in contact with an external environment (Figure 1), and a flow path (from 1 and out 32) that allows an opening of a tank body (2) and the external environment to communicate with each other via the discharge port (Figure 1); and
a valve (10) that is provided at the flow path (Figure 1), and configured to close the flow path at a normal time (Figure 1), and open the flow path at a time of abnormally high temperature or abnormality detection (Col 1, lines 47-50),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein a total opening area of the discharge port is 0.008 to 5.5mm2.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discharge port of Cockram et al with a total opening area of 0.008 to 5.5 mm2 since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the discharge port of Cockram et al would not operate differently with the claimed port dimensions since the discharge port of Cockram et al functions in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed discharge port.
Regarding Claim 2, Cockram et al disclose wherein: the valve includes an openable portion (3) that is opened by driving an opening means provided in the flow path (9), and the opening means is provided downstream of the openable portion in the flow path (Figure 1), and configured to open the openable portion using energy obtained by igniting an explosive as a drive source (via 26; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Cockram et al disclose where the opening means is an igniter that is activated by flowing a current(via 26 of 9 in Figure 1), the openable portion is a plate-shaped member that is configured to close the flow path (Figure 1), and the plate-shaped member is configured to be melted or broken directly by a flame generated by igniting the explosive (Col 2, lines 66-69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are allowed.
Claim 7 is indicated as allowed for claiming, along with the entirety of the claim limitations, “a power generation unit that generates power by a Seebeck effect in a case where a temperature difference occurs at a predetermined location; and a wiring that electrically connects an igniter that is activated by flowing a current as the explosive and the power generation unit”. This limitation is neither anticipated by, nor rendered obvious over, the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., safely and slowly discharging gas in a controlled slow discharge rate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, it is noted that the Specification appears to be moot to providing a slow controlled release of gas from the tank, but appears to instead discuss lowering the amount of gas discharged (¶ 28).
Additionally, Applicant argues the prior art is directed to quickly discharging pressure from the tank and the Applicant’s invention is directed to slowly discharging pressure from the tank. However, the size of the discharge port providing a quick or slow discharge of gas from the tank is impacted by other factors such as the size of the tank or the pressure of the gas within the tank. Therefore, in the instant case, the discharge port of Vernet would not operate differently with the claimed port dimensions since the discharge port of Vernet functions in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed discharge port, in order to allow the passage of gas from the tank.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights