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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-20 are pending in the application. Claims 5-6 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 19-20 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10 April 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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 19 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.
Claim 19 is rejected as being indefinite because it further limits the “male and female connector portions” to be “screw connector portions”, but the “male and female connector portions” are recited only in the alternative in claim 1, and are not necessarily required by the claimed invention. Claim 1, from which claim 19 depends, recites that the endcaps are connected through either “a plurality of stainless-steel rivets” or “a male and female connector portion”; therefore, it is unclear if claim 19 is intended to further limit this to just the “male and female connector portions” and to require the male and female connector portions to be “screw connector portions”, or just to further limit the “male and female connector portion” if this arrangement is present (but not if the rivets are present).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett (US 2014/0209331) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0140432) and further in view of Hershberger et al. (US 2019/0091498).
Regarding claim 1, Burkett discloses a fire and explosion resistant safety bag (par. 21) comprising:
a body (101) that defines an internal volume (fig. 1A) for carrying and storing a lithium-ion battery having a maximum energy capacity between about 250-1250 Wh (par. 22),
wherein the body of the bag is formed of multiple layers (115/117/119) comprising fire resistant inner layer (119, see par. 28) and a thermal insulation layer (117/115, see par. 28) designed for containing the thermal runaway of a 50% charged 750 Wh Lithium-ion battery (par. 28), and
wherein the multiple layers are jointly flexible for allowing one end of the bag to be folded between an open (fig. 1D) and a closed position (fig. 1E) for reversibly closing off the internal volume against manual access (par. 27),
wherein the bag comprises a first high temperature vent (130) extending through the multiple, jointly flexible, layers, suitable for venting gasses from the inner volume to the environment (par. 30), said vent being loaded with a fire-resistant material forming a filter (147).
Burkett does not disclose firstly, wherein the fire-resistant material with which the first vent is loaded is a stainless-steel wiring, or secondly, wherein the first vent comprises two metal endcaps which are fastened to each other forming an internal space, and are each provided with through holes, wherein the fire-resistant material is loaded therebetween at least partially within the internal space, and wherein each of the metal of the end caps is selected for having a melting point above about 1,100°C.
Chen teaches a housing (P20) for containing a battery (P30, see par. 52), the housing comprising a high temperature vent (P10, see par. 54) loaded with a fire-resistant material forming a filter (112, see par. 67) and wherein the fire-resistant material with which the first vent is loaded is a stainless-steel wiring (par. 60 – “thin plate material…wound around a center axis”; fig. 5), and wherein the first vent comprises two metal endcaps (111a/b, 113) which are fastened to each other forming an internal space (fig. 5, 6), and are each provided with through holes (figs. 5, 6 – unlabeled, interpreted to be the holes in the corners), wherein the fire-resistant material is loaded therebetween at least partially within the internal space (figs. 5, 6), and wherein each of the metal of the end caps is selected for having a melting point above about 1,100°C (par. 61 – housing 113 is made of stainless steel), and wherein the endcaps each have a flange (113a/b) for securing it firmly to the body of the bag (par. 61).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-resistant material of the bag of Burkett to be stainless steel wiring, as taught by Chen, since this was known to effectively arrest fires while still allowing a large volume of gas flow and to have a low manufacturing cost (Chen – par. 60). Further, it would have been obvious to have modified the first vent of Burkett to comprise two metal endcaps which are fastened to each other forming an internal space, and are each provided with through holes, wherein the fire-resistant material is loaded therebetween at least partially within the internal space, and wherein each of the metal of the end caps is selected for having a melting point above about 1,100°C, as taught by Chen, since this was known arrangement to provide a flame arrester to the vent (Chen – par. 57).
Burkett in view of Chen still does not disclose wherein the two endcaps comprise a male and female connector portion respectively, and wherein the two endcaps are fastened by these connector portions such that the flanges of the two endcaps clamp a portion of the body therebetween for fixing the first vent to the bag body.
Hershberger teaches a fire-resistant safety bag (20, par. 16) comprising a vent (26) comprising two endcaps (28/38) each provided with through holes (fig. 3), and wherein the two endcaps comprise a male (49) and female (32) connector portion respectively, and wherein the two endcaps are fastened by these connector portions such that the flanges (34/36) of the two endcaps clamp a portion of the body therebetween for fixing the first vent to the bag body (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the vent of Burkett in view of Chen such that the two endcaps are fastened by these connector portions such that the flanges of the two endcaps clamp a portion of the body therebetween for fixing the first vent to the bag body, as taught by Hershberger, since this was a known arrangement for attaching a vent to a flexible, fire-resistant safety bag.
Regarding claim 2, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a second high temperature vent, wherein the second high temperature vent is positioned opposite the first vent (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the body is stitched (par. 28 – “sewn”) such that the bag comprises a stable orientation in an inflated condition, and wherein in said stable orientation the first vent is directed upwardly (fig. 1A – when the bag is laid on the back side of this figure, it will be “stable” due to the relatively large surface and the vents 130 will be direct upwardly).
Regarding claim 4, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and Chen further teaches the housing comprising a high temperature vent (P10, see par. 54) loaded with a fire-resistant material forming a filter (3, 4, see par. 67) and made of stainless steel (par. 64, 66).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vent of the bag of Burkett to be made of stainless steel, as also taught by Chen, since this was known to be a light fire-resistant material with a good heat absorption effect suited for such an application (Chen – par. 64).
Regarding claim 7, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and Hershberger further teaches wherein a portion (71) of the endcap (38) at an outer part of the bag is projects outwardly (fig. 3) such that the through holes (64/65/67/69/70) face multiple different directions (fig. 3). Hershberger does not teach that the endcap at the outer part is convex, but Hershberger does teach that the endcap at an inner part is convex (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the vent of Burkett in view of Chen such that the endcap at an outer part of the bag is convex such that the through holes face multiple different directions, as taught by Hershberger, since this would disperse the hot gasses in multiple directions, which would provide rapid cooling and dilution of the harmful gases into the environment. Further, it would have been obvious to also make the portion of the end cap at the outer part convex since this is shown to allow the through holes to extend in even more directions.
Regarding claim 8, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and further wherein each flange (113a/b) extends in a radial direction from the first vent (fig. 6) and wherein the endcaps are connected by their flanges through fasteners (par. 61 – “bolt”).
Regarding claim 14, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a lock (149) for reversibly locking the bag in the closed position (par. 27).
Regarding claim 15, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and Chen further teaches wherein the first vent comprises an inner portion forming a labyrinth or maze (par. 60 – “flame arresting disk 112 provides zigzag flow channels”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first vent of the bag of Burkett to form a labyrinth or maze, as taught by Chen, since this was known to effectively arrest fires while still allowing a large volume of gas flow and to have a low manufacturing cost (Chen – par. 60).
Regarding claim 17, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the body is free of aluminum (par. 27 – inner layer is “vermiculite coated or other fiberglass coated material, ceramic fiber material, etc”, middle layer is “a ceramic fiber material”, and outer layer is “silicone rubber coated fiberglass cloth, vinyl laminated polyester, NOMEX fabric, etc.”).
Regarding claim 18, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, but not wherein the body is designed such that the fully inflated inner volume of the bag is about 2-10dm3. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the inner volume of the bag to be 2-10dm3 since our reviewing courts have 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 patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 19, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and Hershberger further teaches wherein the male and female connector portions of the two endcaps comprise screw connector portions (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and Hershberger further teaches wherein the two fastened endcaps are screw fastened (fig. 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett, in view of Chen and Hershberger, and further in view of Scholtens et al. (US 2019/0083830).
Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, but not wherein the body of the bag is stitched with a yarn comprising a stainless core and Kevlar-wounding, wherein the stainless-steel core is selected for being thermally stable at least up to and including about 1100°C.
Scholtens teaches a fire-resistant safety bag (par. 2; fig. 1) comprising a body wherein the body of the bag is stitched with a yarn comprising a stainless core and Kevlar-wounding, wherein the stainless-steel core is selected for being thermally stable at least up to and including about 1100°C (par. 19 – stainless steel is inherently stable at 1100°C).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the bag of Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger such that the body of the bag is stitched with a yarn comprising a stainless core and Kevlar-wounding, wherein the stainless-steel core is selected for being thermally stable at least up to and including about 1100°C, as taught by Scholtens, since this was a known yarn to use for the seams of a fire-resistant safety bag.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett, in view of Chen and Hershberger, and further in view of Chang (US 2009/0190865) and Cordani (US 2018/0345060).
Regarding claim 11, Burkett, in view of Chen and Hershberger, discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the inner layer (119) comprising fiberglass cloth (par. 28); an outer layer (115) comprising a silicone coated glass fabric (par. 28); and the thermal insulation layer provided as an intermediate layer between the inner and outer layer comprising an insulation material with a melting point of at least about 1200°C (par. 28). But Burkett does not disclose wherein the textile of inner layer is thermally stable at about 1200°C, or that the insulation material of the intermediate layer is nanofiber-based.
Chang teaches a fire-resistant safety bag (1, see par. 1; fig. 1) comprising a body formed of an inner layer (201) comprising a textile that is thermally stable at about 1200°C (par. 13); an intermediate layer (203) comprising an insulation material (par. 13); and an outer layer (204).
Cordani teaches a fire-resistant safety bag (80) that is nanofiber-based (clm. 7).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the bag of Burkett, in view of Chen and Hershberger, such that the textile of inner layer is thermally stable at about 1200°C, as taught by Chang, and the insulation material of the intermediate layer is nanofiber-based, as taught by Cordani, since these were known materials for providing fire-resistant bags capable of containing fires.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Burkett in view of Chen, Hershberger, Chang, and Cordani discloses the bag described regarding claim 11, but does not further disclose the specific thicknesses of the layers, in particular wherein: the inner layer has a thickness of about 0.5-0.9 mm (claim 12), more specifically 0.7 mm (claim 13); the outer layer has a thickness of about 0.3-0. 6 mm (claim 12), more specifically 0.45 mm (claim 13); and the intermediate layer has a thickness of about 5-7 mm (claim 12), more specifically 6 mm (claim 13).
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the thickness of each of the layers as recited since our reviewing courts have 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 patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett, in view of Chen and Hershberger, and further in view of King (US 2020/0052262).
Burkett, in view of Chen and Hershberger, discloses the bag described regarding claim 15, but not further wherein said inner portion is loaded with beads comprising water, or a fire-retardant material.
King teaches a fire-resistant container (1) for containing a battery (par. 2), the housing comprising an inner portion (fig. 5) is loaded with beads (5) comprising water, or a fire-retardant material (par. 15).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first vent of the bag of Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger such that said inner portion is loaded with beads comprising water, or a fire-retardant material, as taught by King, since this was known to suppress fires within the inner portion (King – par. 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen does not teach the body of the bag being clamped between the flanges of the endcaps. 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). In particular, the Office has not interpreted Chen to teach the subject limitation.
Applicant further argues that Hershberger teaches “washers” and “washers are not a suitable substitute for flanges”. In response, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “flange” is interpreted to be “a protruding rim, edge, rib, or collar, as on a wheel or a pipe shaft, used to strengthen an object, hold it in place, or attach it to another object”, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. The washers of Hershberger can be construed to be “flanges” since they are collars used to attach an object to another object.
Applicant further argues that the proposed combination of Burkett in view of Chen and Hershberger is improper because there would be no “objective reason to combine the teachings of the references”. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for the proposed combination is stated in the rejection above.
Finally, 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., that “there can be no flame path control in stainless steel wiring because stainless steel wiring (e.g., conduit or sheathed cable) does not provide a predictable, maintainable, or certifiable flame path”) 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).
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752