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 .
Status of the claims
Claim(s) 11,12,16,19,20,22,26,29 is/are amended, claim(s) 21 is/are cancelled. Currently claims 11-20, 22-29 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 25, 27, 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims depend on canceled claim 21. They are assumed to depend on claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-16, 18-20, 22-26, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Short (4549565) in view of Berry et al (20230304593), further in view of Bauer et al (DE 102018005204 A1) and Wilson et al (20170307095).
Regarding claim 11, Short, fig 1-6, discloses a safety device consisting of a screw body with a screw head 20, which is connected to the screw body in one piece and forms a rotary-drive part, and with a thread 22, which is connected to the screw head in one piece and forms a securing part, and also with a rupture device 26, which is arranged in a channel of the screw body.
Short fails to disclose a sight glass in downstream portion of the channel of the screw body, which together with the rupture device forms an inspecting device for assessing the state of the rupture device.
Berry teaches a safety device with a rupture device 101d , which is arranged in a channel of the safety device body, wherein a sight glass 103, 203 is located at downstream open end of the channel of the safety device body, which together with the rupture device, forms an inspecting device for assessing the state of the rupture device (Para 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Short with relief channel having an open downstream end closed by a sight glass as taught by Berry in order to enable checking of rupture disk status.
Short as modified (as taught by Berry) teaches sight glass at the downstream end of channel but fails to disclose the sight glass accommodated entirely within in the channel and flush with channel opening.
Bauer teaches a sight glass 34 accommodated entirely within in a channel 44 and flush with channel opening from outside.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Short as modified with sight glass accommodated entirely within in the channel and flush with channel opening as taught by Berry in order to provide a compact device.
Short as modified fails to disclose the rupture disc accommodated entirely within in the channel.
Wilson teaches a rupture disc 18 accommodated entirely within in a channel 14 and flush with channel opening from outside.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Short as modified with rupture disc accommodated entirely within in the channel and flush with channel opening as taught by Wilson in order to provide a compact device.
As to claim 12, Short shows rupture device comprises a rupture disc 26, which is securely connected to the screw body in a channel 18 thereof as an independent component, in particular securely welded (col 3 line 1-10) along an outer circumferential line 32 of the rupture disc.
As to claim 13, the rupture disc 26 spans a free (lower) end of the channel 18 on the inside, said end being adjacent to a thread 22 runout, which is arranged on the side (lower) of the screw body facing away from the screw head 20.
As to claim 14, rupture disc 26 is furnished with a curvature 28 originating from the securing point of said rupture disc in the channel 18 of the screw body, said curvature protruding in the direction of the sight glass ( in view of Berry).
As to claim 15, the channel 18 is formed by a hollow-cylindrical recess in the screw body, which passes completely (in view of Berry, downstream open side having sight glass) through the screw body, retaining the same diameter, and emerging into the environment at its free ends which are opposite one another.
As to claim 16, the diameter of the rupture disc 26 and the diameter of the sight glass (both accommodated inside channel, in view of Bauer), which is designed to be cylindrical, is identical.
As to claims 18, 19, the screw body is formed of a metallic material (hatch pattern in Short), which surrounds the glass material of the sight glass (in view of Bauer), such that the glass material is inside the channel of the screw body and is clamped by the metallic material in an annular manner.
Regarding the term “together, are heated to a temperature at which the glass material is liquid or paste-like and runs onto the metallic material in contact with said material such that, when it subsequently cools down, the glass material sets inside the channel of the screw body”, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (MPEP 2113).
As to claims 20, Short, fig 1-6, discloses hydraulic component with a housing 42 in which at least one pressurized fluid channel (upstream section of fluid space of wall 42) runs and having a safety device 10, which is secured in a pressure-tight manner in the housing 42 and, lying on the housing with its screw head 20, establishes a fluid-conveying connection between the rupture device 26 and the pressurized channel such that, if a safety-critical threshold pressure value in the fluid channel is exceeded, the rupture device 26 yields, wherein the safety device comprises a screw body 10 with a screw head 20 , which is connected to the screw body in one piece and forms a rotary-drive part, and with a thread 22, which is connected to the screw head in one piece and forms a securing part, and also with a rupture device 26, which is arranged in a channel 18 of the screw body. Short, fig 1-6, discloses the safety device consisting of a screw body with a screw head 20, which is connected to the screw body in one piece and forms a rotary-drive part, and with a thread 22, which is connected to the screw head in one piece and forms a securing part, and also with a rupture device 26, which is arranged in a channel of the screw body.
Short fails to disclose a sight glass in downstream portion of the channel of the screw body, which together with the rupture device forms an inspecting device for assessing the state of the rupture device.
Berry teaches a safety device with a rupture device 101d , which is arranged in a channel of the safety device body, wherein a sight glass 103, 203 is located at downstream open end of the channel of the safety device body, which together with the rupture device, forms an inspecting device for assessing the state of the rupture device (Para 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Short with relief channel having an open downstream end closed by a sight glass as taught by Berry in order to enable checking of rupture disk status.
Short as modified (as taught by Berry) teaches sight glass at the downstream end of channel but fails to disclose the sight glass accommodated entirely within in the channel and flush with channel opening.
Bauer teaches a sight glass 34 accommodated entirely within in a channel 44 and flush with channel opening from outside.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Short as modified with sight glass accommodated entirely within in the channel and flush with channel opening as taught by Berry in order to provide a compact device.
Short as modified fails to disclose the rupture disc accommodated entirely within in the channel.
Wilson teaches a rupture disc 18 accommodated entirely within in a channel 14 and flush with channel opening from outside.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Short as modified with rupture disc accommodated entirely within in the channel and flush with channel opening as taught by Wilson in order to provide a compact device.
As to claim 22, Short shows rupture device comprises a rupture disc 26, which is securely connected to the screw body in a channel 18 thereof as an independent component, in particular securely welded (col 3 line 1-10) along an outer circumferential line 32 of the rupture disc.
As to claim 23, the rupture disc 26 spans a free (lower) end of the channel 18 on the inside, said end being adjacent to a thread 22 runout, which is arranged on the side (lower) of the screw body facing away from the screw head 20.
As to claim 24, rupture disc 26 is furnished with a curvature 28 originating from the securing point of said rupture disc in the channel 18 of the screw body, said curvature protruding in the direction of the sight glass ( in view of Berry).
As to claim 25, the channel 18 is formed by a hollow-cylindrical recess in the screw body, which passes completely (in view of Berry, downstream open side having sight glass) through the screw body, retaining the same diameter, and emerging into the environment at its free ends which are opposite one another.
As to claim 26, the diameter of the rupture disc 26 and the diameter of the sight glass (both accommodated inside channel, in view of Bauer), which is designed to be cylindrical, is identical.
As to claims 28, 29, the screw body is formed of a metallic material (hatch pattern in Short), which surrounds the glass material of the sight glass (in view of Bauer), such that the glass material is inside the channel of the screw body and is clamped by the metallic material in an annular manner.
Regarding the term “together, are heated to a temperature at which the glass material is liquid or paste-like and runs onto the metallic material in contact with said material such that, when it subsequently cools down, the glass material sets inside the channel of the screw body”, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (MPEP 2113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17 and 27 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims. Wilson is cited to show incorporation of the rupture disc accommodated entirely within in the channel.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Berry that “Indicator 103 according to FIG. 1 is not a sight glass, and it is only partially accommodated in a channel” are not persuasive since Berry, Para 21 states “the indicator 103 can be a sight glass” and Bauer teaches a sight glass 34 accommodated entirely within in a channel 44 and flush with channel opening from outside. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753