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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-18, and 21-26 are pending in the application. Claims 8 and 19-20 and have been canceled. Claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 5-6 and 9 were previously canceled. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 4 December 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.
Claims 22-26 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.
Claims 22 and 26 are rejected as being indefinite because the term “firmly" in lines 2 and 20, respectively, is subjective and does not particularly and distinctly limit the metes and bounds of the claims. The term "firmly" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “firmly" according to the American Heritage dictionary is "securely fixed in place". In both claims, the term "firmly" describes the manner in which the endcaps of the vent are attached to the bag; however, what one of ordinary skill in the art might consider to be “securely fixed”, another having ordinary skill in the art might not. Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. See 2173.05(b)IV.
Claims 23-25 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 22.
Claim 24 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 22, and are not necessarily required by the claimed invention. Claim 22, from which claim 24 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 24 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, 14-15, 17-18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett (US 2014/0209331) in view of Hershberger et al. (US 2019/0091498) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0140432).
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 wherein the fire-resistant material with which the first vent is loaded is a stainless-steel wiring, or 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 internal space is at least partially disposed within the multiple layers of the body, and wherein the fire-resistant material is loaded therebetween at least partially within the internal space.
Hershberger teaches a fire-resistant safety bag (20, par. 16) comprising a body that defines an internal volume (fig. 1) and formed of multiple layers (par. 15), a vent (26) comprising two endcaps (28/38) which are fastened to each other forming an internal space (fig. 2), and are each provided with through holes (fig. 3), wherein the internal space is at least partially disposed within the multiple layers of the 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 such that 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, as taught by Hershberger, since this was a known arrangement for attaching a vent to a flexible, fire-resistant safety bag.
Burkett in view of Hershberger still does not disclose wherein the two vent endcaps are metal or that the fire-resistant material with which the first vent is loaded is a stainless-steel wiring.
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, see par. 61) 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), and wherein the fire-resistant material is loaded therebetween at least partially within the internal space (figs. 5, 6).
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 endcaps of the first vent of Burkett in view of Hershberger to comprise metal, as taught by Chen, since this material was known to be suitable for such an application.
Regarding claim 2, Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen 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 Hershberger and Chen 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 Hershberger and Chen 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 Hershberger and Chen 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 14, Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen 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 Hershberger and Chen 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 Hershberger and Chen discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and 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 Hershberger and Chen 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 21, Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen discloses the bag described regarding claim 1, and Chen further teaches 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).
Regarding claim 22, Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen discloses the bag described regarding claim 1. Hershberger further teaches wherein the two endcaps each have a flange (34/36) for securing it firmly to the body of the bag (fig. 2), and are connected through 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).
Regarding claim 23, Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen discloses the bag described regarding claim 22, and Hershberger further teaches wherein each flange (34/36) extends in a radial direction from the first vent (fig. 2) and wherein the endcaps are connected by their flanges through fasteners (32/49, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen discloses the bag described regarding claim 22, and Hershberger further teaches wherein the male and female connector portions of the two endcaps comprise screw connector portions (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen discloses the bag described regarding claim 22, and Hershberger further teaches wherein the two fastened endcaps are screw fastened (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, 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,
wherein the fire-resistant material with which the first vent is loaded is a stainless-steel wiring,
or, 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 internal space is at least partially disposed within the multiple layers of the body, wherein the fire-resistant material is loaded therebetween at least partially within the internal space, wherein each of the metal of the end caps is selected for having a melting point above about 1,100°C, and wherein the endcaps each have a flange for securing it firmly to the body of the bag, and are connected through:
a plurality of stainless-steel rivets which extend therethrough and through the multiple layers of the body; or
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.
Regarding the latter, Hershberger teaches a fire-resistant safety bag (20, par. 16) comprising a body that defines an internal volume (fig. 1) and formed of multiple layers (par. 15), a vent (26) comprising two endcaps (28/38) which are fastened to each other forming an internal space (fig. 2), and are each provided with through holes (fig. 3), wherein the internal space is at least partially disposed within the multiple layers of the body (fig. 2), wherein a fire-resistant material (40) is loaded therebetween at least partially within the internal space (fig. 2), and wherein the endcaps each have a flange (34/36) for securing it firmly to the body of the bag (fig. 2), and are connected through 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 (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 such that the first vent comprises the recited structure, as taught by Hershberger, since this was a known arrangement for attaching a vent to a flexible, fire-resistant safety bag.
Burkett in view of Hershberger still does not disclose wherein the two vent endcaps are metal having a melting point above about 1,100°C or that the fire-resistant material with which the first vent is loaded is a stainless-steel wiring.
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, see par. 61) 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), and 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).
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 endcaps of the first vent of Burkett in view of Hershberger to comprise metal having a melting point above about 1,100°C, as taught by Chen, since this material was known to be suitable for such an application.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett, in view of Hershberger and Chen, and further in view of Scholtens et al. (US 2019/0083830).
Burkett in view of Hershberger and Chen 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, and 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 Hershberger and Chen 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 Hershberger and Chen, and further in view of Chang (US 2009/0190865) and Cordani (US 2018/0345060).
Regarding claim 11, Burkett, in view of Hershberger and Chen, 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 Hershberger and Chen, 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 Hershberger, Chen, 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 Hershberger and Chen, and further in view of King (US 2020/0052262).
Burkett, in view of Hershberger and Chen, 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 Hershberger and Chen 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 3 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 19, which is now presented as claim 24, Applicant states that the latter interpretation is intended. In order to overcome the rejection, claim 24 should be amended to positively require the “male and female connector portion” recited in the alternative by claim 22.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Burkett in view of Chen does not disclose the newly added limitation requiring the internal space at least partially disposed within the multiple layers of the body. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Chen to teach this limitation.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights