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
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/07/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/07/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 20150340669 A1) in view of Schurz et al. (US 20240079668 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a battery frame (box) that has a support member, 81f, with an expansion member, 71, that presses against the support member and can make it move. This is shown by comparing figs. 11C and 11D, Fig. 11D is without 71 pushing against the contact face, 82, and Fig, 11C is with 71 pushing against the contact face. Fig. 11C also shows that the expansion member abuts against the support member to push it towards the cell. While an accommodating space is not specified, the support member, 81f, is said to be brought into contact with the cells via the contact part, 82, this phrasing means that the support member is not static and is brought up to the cells during their manufacture or assembly and there would be an accommodating space present before the support member is pressed against the cells (Aoki 0054). Aoki is silent to a binder present in the accommodating space between the support member and the cells. Schurz teaches a battery box (housing) that has an adhesive that connects the side wall of the battery box to the cells within, directly supporting them so that there is a higher shearing resistance (Schurz 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery box of Aoki with its expansion and support member, and bind the support member to the side of the cells via an adhesive in the accommodating space in order to have a higher shearing resistance as discussed in Schurz.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 1 as described above and Aoki further teaches 81f and 21, as shown in figs. 2 and 3, connect together to form an accommodating cavity in which the expansion member, 71, sits.
Regarding claim 3, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 2 as described above and Aoki further teaches in figs. 4 and 11 that the support member can have a gap and the expansion member goes through that gap.
PNG
media_image2.png
139
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 2 as described above and Aoki further teaches that the support member has a first wall, 82 and a second wall, 21 which are opposite each other and the first wall, 82, is connected to the cells via a binder as described regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 4 as described above and Aoki further teaches that the cell holder, 81f, which consists of the first wall, 82, is made of a resin material and elastically deforms near the ends when pressed by the spring, 71 (Aoki fig. 8, 0062).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 5 as described above and Aoki further teaches that the deformable wall has an arc.
PNG
media_image3.png
418
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7-9, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 4 as described above and Aoki further teaches that the expansion member has a third and fourth wall opposite each other and the fourth wall abuts against the second wall. Further, there is a connecting wall connecting the third and fourth wall and all of them together form a hollow cavity.
PNG
media_image4.png
164
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 4 as described above and Aoki further teaches that the distance between the third and fourth wall is greater than the distance between the first and second wall (Aoki fig. 11).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 1 as described above and Aoki further teaches a secondary battery within the box that releases stored energy to a device (Aoki 0001).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 20150340669 A1) in view of Schurz et al. (US 20240079668 A1) and further in view of Hettrich
(US 20200168959 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Aoki in view of Schurz teaches claim 4 as described above but is
silent to the expansion member comprising a gas bag that inflates to press against the first or
second wall. Hettrich teaches a battery module housing (box) that contains multiple battery
cells which are connected to the side wall of the housing via a compressible element that
modulates isostatic pressure against the battery cells (Hettrich 0007 0008). Hettrich further
goes on to define the compressible element as anything that has the capacity to contract or
expand such as a coil or leaf spring as well as a bladder filled with gas (Hettrich 0034). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill In the art at the time the invention was effectively
filed to take the simple spring of Aoki in view of Schurz and simply replace it with a gas bag
as described in Hettrich as a simple matter of substituting a component with another
equivalent component for the same purpose as known in the art, See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights