DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The European search report in the non-patent literature cite no. 1 does not include an English language translation as stated, nor is the English language translation available via the EPO or Global Dossier, and so the document has not been considered.
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:
ph 0036, legs 141, fram 121, sealing part 122 ph 0037, through holes ph 0036 (needs interlineation.)
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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 1-13 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 recites the limitation "the event…" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to how substantial the limitation is parallel.
Claim 9 recites “the sound-absorbing insulating material is at least normally flammable, is deformable or flexible, has a high resistance to environmental influences, absorbs little or no liquids, and/or is closed-cell”, where there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to the claimed phrase, i.e. there is no clear definition of what substantiates “normally”, “high resistance to environmental influences”, “absorbs little or no liquids”, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 7-9, 11-13 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grabert (US 2009/0173393);
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabert as applied to claim 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Arnhold (US 2021/0313780);
Claim(s) 3, 4-6 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabert as applied to claim 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Wurz (US 2013/0206759);
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabert as applied to claims 1 and 8 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 2003/0077969);
Grabert discloses in claim 1: A device (1 figure 1-3) for explosion pressure relief of a container, housing, enclosure, or pipeline (ph 0030) in which an explosive atmosphere is present or may arise (the statement considered a statement of intended use as the phrase adds no meaningful structural limitations to the body of the claim, MPEP 2114), the device comprising: a flame arrester (at 8 ph 0027, 0029, 0031 where the arrester can be arranged as sintered filter fabric layers); and a rupture disk (at 14/5/6) arranged behind (downstream of) the flame arrester in a direction in which gases pass through the device in the event of pressure relief (as discussed.)
Grabert discloses in claim 2: The device of claim 1, wherein the flame arrester is shaped substantially as a [puck] (8 is cylindrical per ph 0027) cuboid block and arranged substantially parallel to the rupture disk (while the inner portion of rupture disk 14 is convex, the outer peripheral portion is parallel to flame arrester 8, making when taken contextually the two substantially parallel to one another.) Grabert does not teach: a cuboid block shape, nor the rupture disk only substantially in a single plane; Arnhold teaches: a cuboid block shape flame arrester (17 figure 1 and 2) , the rupture disk (21) only substantially in a single plane figure 3, provided for the purpose of for example, reducing the overall structural profile to maintain tolerances.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Grabert as taught in Arnhold, a cuboid block shape flame arrester as taught by Arnhold with a rupture disk mebrane as taught by Arnhold that is only substantially in a single plane, and all provided for the purpose of for example, reducing the overall structural profile to maintain tolerances.
Grabert discloses in claim 3: The device of claim 1, wherein the flame arrester includes [a sintered filter 8] but Grabert does not explicitly disclose: one or more layers comprising a knitted fabric or woven fabric; Wurz teaches: one or more layers comprising a knitted fabric or woven fabric (ph 0037 for the purpose of providing a porous body that can weather the flame arresting and allow gases there through.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably suggested by Grabert and as in Wurz, one or more layers comprising a knitted fabric or woven fabric as taught in Wurz, all for the purpose of providing a porous body that can weather the flame arresting and allow gases there through.
Grabert discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The device of claim 3, wherein the flame arrester comprises a frame (10) that encloses the one or more layers of the flame arrester (as shown.)
Grabert discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The device of claim 4, wherein the one or more layers of the flame arrester are held by the frame of the flame arrester (10 holds the flame arrestor as shown figures 1-3.)
Grabert discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The device of claim 4, wherein the frame of the flame arrester comprises one or more sections having a C-shaped profile (10 has an outward facing c-shaped profile).
Grabert discloses in claim 7: The device of claim 1, wherein the flame arrester comprises a plurality of through holes (passages in the flame arrester 5/8 figure 3 for example, ph 0034) in an edge area (as the entire area from outer circumference inwards has passages acting as fluid through holes.)
Grabert discloses in claim 8: The device of claim 1, further comprising: a sound-absorbing insulating material (5/6/8 all act to absorb sound via the baffling of the sound energy through the passages…) to absorb sound transmission via the device, the sound-absorbing insulating material comprising at least one layer (5/6/8) and being arranged on the rupture disk on a side facing the flame arrester or on (alternative grouping via “or” MPEP 2131) a side facing away from the flame arrester.
Grabert discloses in claim 9: The device of claim 8, wherein the sound-absorbing insulating material is at least (the following considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) normally flammable, is deformable or flexible, has a high resistance to environmental influences (such sintered filters are usually resistant to environment influences), absorbs little or no liquids, and/or is closed-cell.
Grabert discloses in claim 10: The device of claim 8, wherein the sound-absorbing insulating material is a [sintered filter] (id); but Grabert does not disclose using, although Tanaka teaches: using a polyurethane (PU) foam (i.e. for forming a sound absorbing rigid foam ph 0062), a silicone foam, or (“or” indicating an MPEP 2131 alternative grouping) an ethylene-propylene diene monomer (EPDM)-based insulating material;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Grabert as taught in Tanaka, a polyurethane foam, all for the purpose of forming a sound absorbing rigid foam that has expansion ratio that provides for permeability under large stresses relative to thickness.
Grabert discloses in claim 11: The device of claim 8, wherein, where the sound-absorbing insulating material is arranged on the side of the rupture disk facing the flame arrester (6 supports the disk and faces arrester 8), a spacer (the frame of 10) is positioned between an edge of the rupture disk, the spacer setting a distance between the rupture disk and the flame arrester which substantially corresponds to a thickness of the at least one layer of the sound-absorbing insulating material (as shown figure 1-3.)
Grabert discloses in claim 12: The device of claim 11, wherein the spacer is a frame having a C-shaped profile (10) open to an outside of the device (as mentioned above, 10 is c-shaped and is facing outwards.)
Grabert discloses in claim 13: An arrangement (as seen figures 1-3) comprising: the device of claim 1; and the container, housing, enclosure, or pipeline (ph 0002 or 0003 battery container or pipelines), wherein the device is arranged to span a relief opening in a wall of the container, housing, enclosure, or pipeline (as attached at end 9 of the device.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. 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. Ken 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753