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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Niwa et al. (US 2017/0133705 A1).
Considering claim 11, AAPA discloses a fatigue failure verification device comprising:
- a module housing having a welded portion;
- a cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells accommodated in the module housing (Figure 1, [0004-6] of the published specification, US 2023/0375449 A1).
The invention of AAPA discloses the use of a hydraulic unit that is centrally located between battery cells, whereby repeated expansion and contraction of the hydraulic unit reproduces the environment of repeated swelling of the battery cells.
Thus, AAPA fails to explicitly disclose the use of a flexible tube and a pump that applies pressure to the flexible tube to adjust applied pressure by the flexible tube to the battery cells.
However, Niwa teaches a battery housing having a cell stack with a plurality of battery cells and further comprising:
- at least one main flexible tube 12 located in a central portion of the cell stack in a stack direction of the cell stack (Figures 3-13; [0033]);
- a main flexible tube frame 31 in which the at least one main flexible tube is accommodated, the main flexible tube frame 31 comprising a pair of opening portions formed on opposite sides so that the at least one main flexible tube faces the plurality of battery cells (Figures 9-12; [0054-63]); and
- a pump 13 configured to adjust a pressure applied by the at least one main flexible tube 12 to the plurality of battery cells by supplying a fluid to the at least one main flexible tube ([0033]),
- wherein the main flexible tube frame 31 surrounds an outer periphery of the at least one main flexible tube 12 so as to limit a volume expansion direction of the at least one main flexible tube to only the stack direction of the cell stack (Figures 9-12; [0054-63]), and
- wherein the at least one main flexible tube 12 is housed in surface contact with an inner peripheral surface of the main flexible tube frame 31 (Figure ).
The invention by AAPA utilizes a centrally located hydraulic system to expand and contract relative to battery cells. The invention by Niwa utilizes a plurality of centrally located tubes receiving air pressure to expand and contract relative to battery cells. One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known technique of air pressurized tubes taught by Niwa for the hydraulic system of AAPA and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Both the hydraulic system and the air pressurized tube system provide the function of pressurizing battery cells, and therefore, the techniques are both known and functionally equivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flexible tube supported within a frame with side openings that allow the tube to face a plurality of battery cells and a pump that adjusts pressure applied to the flexible tube, as taught by Niwa, in the invention by AAPA.
Considering claim 15, AAPA discloses a pair of buffer pads 3 respectively provided on opposite outermost sides of the cell stack in the stack direction of the cell stack (Figure 1, [0004-6] of the published specification, US 2023/0375449 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-10 of the response, Applicant essentially argues that Niwa fails to disclose that the at least one flexible tube is housed in surface contact with an inner peripheral surface of the main flexible tube frame.
As the best representation of how Niwa does, in fact, disclose such a structure, the Examiner again relies upon Figures 9-12 and the associated [0054-63] paragraphs of the published prior art.
The Examiner finds that Niwa discloses in Figures 9-10, [0054-59], that the frame 31 is made of two parts, 31a and 31b, that sandwich, therebetween, a folded-over rubber sheet 32, thus creating a bag-like rubber pressure bladder, by using rivets or screws 35 along its entire periphery 19 surface. Continuing, Figures 11-12 show the limits placed on the expansion of the rubber sheet walls outward from the rectangular opening portions 36 of the frame 31 only in the stack direction of the battery cells. At no point in the disclosure of Niwa is the flexible tube expanding in a direction that is not in accordance with the stack direction.
It is clear from the disclosure that the at least one main flexible tube 12 is in at least partially in surface contact with the inner peripheral surface of the frame 31, as a total combined set of elements, because it is the frame elements 31a,31b that sandwich and clamp the tube surface therebetween. Figure 12 and [0054], [0063] of Niwa disclose that the expanded rubber sheet 32 of the spacer tube 12 has expanded through the window 36 of the frame 31 to form the pressurization surfaces 18 that contact the battery cell bodies 5. Therefore, as the expanded rubber sheet passes through the opening in the frame, it is in surface contact therewith because the frame element is the constraint on the shape of the expansion. Niwa’s frame 31 completely surrounds the expandable pouch formed by rubber sheet 32, as evidenced by the cited portions of the disclosure.
On page 9 of the response, Applicant argues structural differences between Niwa and the invention. Specifically, Niwa utilizes a plurality of spacers, specifically, a spacer between each battery cell. However, Applicant has not limited the claim to preclude this nor stated this claim limitation. Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive and amounts to an admission that Niwa at least discloses one main flexible tube, if not more. It is unclear how at least one centrally located tube element is unsatisfied by the admitted use of a plurality of spacer elements in Niwa. It would appear that the presence of a plurality of spaced elements in Niwa perfectly anticipates the required “at least one main flexible tube located in a central portion of the cell stack”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive, and the rejection of the claims, despite the amendment, is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 16-24 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 December 27, 2025