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 V (figures 15-17 and claims 11-14 and 17-20) in the reply filed on 15 April 2026 is acknowledged. In the response, applicant stated the “at least claims 10-14 and 17-20 are generic for FIGS. 15-17”. Since claim 10 was cancelled in the claims filed 15 April, 2026, it appears the applicant intended to say claims 11-14 and 17-20 and will be treated as such. Furthermore, applicant states new claims 21-25 also read on the elected species. Therefore claims 11-14 and 17-25 are elected without traverse and claims 15 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23, the applicant states “wherein an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline is between about 40 degrees and about 140 degrees”. However, claim 11, from which claim 23 depends states “wherein an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline”. The “an angle” limitation appears to be introduced twice, falling under double inclusion. Where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). It appears “an angle” of claim 23 should be “the angle”.
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.
Claim 11, 13-14 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulawski (US 4,433,791).
Regarding claim 11, Mulawski teaches a venting system (figures 1-4), comprising: a lid or base (figure 1 and 2, reference 16) comprising a center wall (figure 2) that defines a central longitudinal axis (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below), and a total radius that is measured from the longitudinal axis to an outermost periphery of the lid or base (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below); and a pressure relief feature (figure 1-4, reference 34) that is disposed along the lid or base (figures 1-4), wherein the pressure relief feature including at least a first venting feature defining a thinned region of the lid or base (figure 2 and 3, reference 36), wherein the first venting feature includes a first portion (figure 2, reference 36’, as shown in the annotated figure below) defining a first centerline (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below) and a second portion (figure 2, reference 36’, as shown in the annotated figure below) defining a second centerline (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below), wherein an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline is between about 20 degrees and about 160 degrees (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below: the angle appears to be about 120 to 130 degrees), wherein a venting radius is measured from the longitudinal axis to an outermost extent of the first portion of the first venting feature (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below), and wherein the venting radius is less than about 40% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below: the venting radius appears to be about 15% to about 20% of the total radius).
Mulawski discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline is between about 20 degrees and about 160 degrees and the venting radius is less than about 40% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline is between about 20 degrees and about 160 degrees and the venting radius is less than about 40% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
218
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches the first venting feature is offset from the central longitudinal axis (figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches an intersection between the first centerline and the second centerline is offset from the central longitudinal axis (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 11).
Regarding claim 17, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches a cross-sectional profile of the thinned region defined by the first venting feature is one of a rectangular profile, a trapezoidal profile, a triangular profile, and a rounded profile (figure 4, reference 36: rounded profile).
Regarding claim 18, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches a thickness of the thinned region defined by the first venting feature varies (figure 4, reference 36: the thickness in the center of 36 and on the outskirts of 36 varies).
Regarding claim 19, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 18, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches the thickness of the thinned region varies along the first venting feature (figure 4, reference 36: the thickness in the center of 36 and on the outskirts of 36 varies and since the thinned region goes along the venting feature, the thickness of the thinned region varies along the first venting feature).
Regarding claim 20, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches wherein the thinned region defines a region thickness that is less than about 40% of a maximum thickness of the central wall, expressed as a percentage (figure 4, reference 36: The thinned region appears to be less than about 40% of a maximum thickness of the central wall).
Mulawski discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the thinned region defines a region thickness that is less than about 40% of a maximum thickness of the central wall, expressed as a percentage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the thinned region defines a region thickness that is less than about 40% of a maximum thickness of the central wall, expressed as a percentage, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches the first portion mirrors the second portion about an axis extending through an intersection of the first portion and the second portion (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
447
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches the venting radius is less than about 20% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 11: the venting radius appears to be about 15% to about 20% of the total radius).
Mulawski discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the venting radius is less than about 20% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the venting radius is less than about 20% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline is between about 40 degrees and about 140 degrees (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 11: the angle appears to be about 120 to 130 degrees).
Mulawski discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline is between about 40 degrees and about 140 degrees, expressed as a percentage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an angle measured between the first centerline and the second centerline is between about 40 degrees and about 140 degrees, expressed as a percentage, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches the first venting feature is offset from the central longitudinal axis by a minimum venting distance (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 11), wherein the minimum venting distance is less than about 50% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 11).
Mulawski discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the minimum venting distance is less than about 50% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the minimum venting distance is less than about 50% of the total radius of the lid or base, expressed as a percentage, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Mulawski teaches an intersection between the first portion and the second portion is rounded (figure 2, reference 36).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulawski (US 4,433,791), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kampf (DE 19636876).
Regarding claim 12, Mulawski teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Mulawski does not explicitly teach the first venting feature defines a V-shape. However, Kampf does teach the first venting feature defines a V-shape (figure 8, reference 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the venting system of Mulawski to include the first venting feature defines a V-shape, as disclosed by Kampf, because having a V-shaped venting feature would be a change in shape of the venting feature. To modify the C-shape venting feature of Mulawski with the V-shaped venting feature of Kampf as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the venting feature and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stodd et al. (US 20180339814) discloses a venting system with a pressure relief feature on a lid in a v-shaped pattern.
Youm et al. (US 20080164256) discloses a venting system in the base with a pressure relief feature.
Stearns et al. (US 7,875,376) discloses an off-center pressure relief feature on a top.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights