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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2019-0092629, filed on 07/30/2020.
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 3 and 7 have been cancelled.
Claims 1,2,4-6 and 8-12 are pending and examined as follows:
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 is dependent on canceled claim 7. Claim 12 needs to be dependent from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,2,4-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “without directly contact with the battery tab” is not supported by the specification and therefore considered new matter. The specification does not discuss how measuring is done if there is not contact with the battery tab.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2-6,8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupienski et al (US20170322168) in view of Newman et al (US20180331347) in view of Denenberg et al (WO2015061487).
With regards to claim 1, Lupienski et al discloses a method of evaluating a resistance welding quality for a cylindrical battery including a battery tab having a welding portion ; and a metal case where the battery tab is plated and wrapping the cylindrical battery (method for evaluating a weld junction between a terminal and an electrode element of a battery cell , Title and battery cell 10 may be a cylindrical device, paragraph 0013, lines 1-3), comprising: measuring an eddy current generated by applying magnetic field (the term “signal” refers to any physically discernible indicator that conveys information, and may be any suitable waveform (e.g., electrical, optical, magnetic, mechanical or electromagnetic), such as DC, AC, sinusoidal-wave, triangular-wave, square-wave, vibration, and the like, that is capable of traveling through a medium, paragraph 0023, lines 21-24) on one plane of the battery including the welding portion at a line from one end of the plane to an opposite end that goes across the welding portion (test circuit 80 includes a constant current power supply 82 and data acquisition system 84 having an analog/digital converter and related electrical circuits to monitor power across probes 41 and 42 which will in part have a measured current, paragraph 0019, lines 3-12), and the one end and the opposite end being spaced apart from the welding portion (paired current probes 35 and 36 are disposed to straddle the first weld seam 20 in proximity of the left zone 26, and corresponding paired voltage probes 45 and 46 are disposed to straddle the first weld seam 20 adjacent thereto in like manner to those described for the right zone 22, paragraph 0017, lines 22-24),analyzing the measured eddy current signal and determining a resistance welding quality by comparing an eddy current signal value at the welding portion with an eddy current signal value at a point other than the welding portion (the controller 100 can detect a fault in one of the left zone 26, center zone 24 and right zone 22 when the resistance in the respective zone is greater than a threshold resistance, wherein in part the resistance will have a measured current, paragraph 0020, lines 16-20); and the measuring the eddy current signal is performed on an upper surface of the cylindrical battery where a battery tab has been welded in the cylindrical battery, from one end of the upper surface to an opposite end through the welding portion (test circuit 80 includes a constant current power supply 82 and data acquisition system 84 having an analog/digital converter and related electrical circuits to monitor power across probes 41 and 42 which will in part have a measured current wherein probes 41 and 42 are in contact with positive terminal 14 and negative terminal 54 which are the upper surface of battery cell 10, Fig. 1,2).
Lupienski et al does not disclose measuring the eddy current signal without directly contact with the battery tab.
Newman et al teaches a method for producing magnetically coated busbar tabs by measuring the eddy current signal without directly contact with the battery tab (the core 224 may be movable in a direction 252 toward the tab 112 and an actuator 348a (which may be the same or similar to the actuation system 348b described in conjunction with FIG. 3) can move the core 224 relative to the body 210 based on control signals from a controller 340 (see FIG. 3) and the movement of the magnetic field 228 through the electrically conductive tab 112 can create an eddy current 236 in the tab 112, paragraph 0049, lines 5-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lupienski et al and Newman et al before him or her, to modify the step of measuring of eddy current of Lupienski et al with the use of core and controller as taught by Newman et al because the combination allows a non-contact method of attaching a tab to a battery to ensure a clean product.
Lupienski et al and Newman et al does not teach a peak value of the eddy current signal measured at a point other than the welding portion is set as a reference value, a minimum value of the eddy current signal measured at the welding portion is set as a physical property value, and the determining the resistance welding quality includes calculating a difference between a reference value and the physical property value, and determining the resistance welding as being defective when the calculated value is outside a preset range.
Denenberg et al teaches a peak value of the eddy current signal measured at a point other than the welding portion is set as a reference value (eddy current sensor placed on a test object during measurement to set a nominal property of magnetic permeability as a reference, paragraph 0024, lines 1-4), a minimum value of the eddy current signal measured at the welding portion is set as a physical property value , and the determining the resistance welding quality includes calculating a difference between a reference value and the physical property value, and determining the resistance welding as being defective when the calculated value is outside a preset range (the magnetic permeability response may be a change in difference between a permeability associated with a base material portion of the test object and a permeability of a region within a heating coil covered region neighboring the weld for the magnetic permeability after PWHT when compared to the response before PWHT, paragraph 0050, lines 4-8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lupienski et al, Newman et al and Denenberg et al before him or her, to modify the step of determining a resistance welding quality of Lupienski et al and Newman et al with the use of the eddy current sensor as taught by Denenberg et al because the combination allows for an efficient way of determining a material condition after welding.
With regards to claim 2, Lupienski et al discloses wherein the welding portion is a point where a battery tab is joined by resistance welding (weld seam 20 is a point where tab portion 13 and the positive terminal 14 by resistance welding, paragraph 0012, lines 1-8).
With regards to claim 3, Lupienski et al discloses wherein the battery is a cylindrical battery (battery cell 10 may be a cylindrical device, paragraph 0013, lines 1-3), and the measuring the eddy current signal is performed on a plane of one end of the cylindrical battery to which the battery tab is welded (cylindrical device having terminals extending from one of its ends, paragraph 0013, lines 2-4).
With regards to claim 4, Lupienski et al discloses wherein a line connecting an opposite end through the welding portion at one end of the plane is a straight line passing through the welding portion (both probes 41,42 are on a straight line through zone 22 of weld seam 20 contacting the upper surface of battery cell 10, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 5, Lupienski et al discloses wherein the measuring the eddy current signal is performed continuously or intermittently (the electrical test circuit 80 includes a constant current power supply 82 via a line of probes 31,32 along weld seam 20, paragraph 0019, lines 1-4).
With regards to claim 6, Lupienski et al discloses wherein in the measuring the eddy current signal, both ends of the plane and the welding portion are included as a point to measure the eddy current signal (data acquisition system 84 has probes 41,42 on each side of weld seam 20, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 8, Lupienski et al and Newman et al teaches wherein the battery is a cylindrical battery (battery cell 10 may be a cylindrical device, paragraph 0013, lines 1-3).
Lupienski et al and Newman et al does not disclose a reference value is an average value of respective peak values of the eddy current signal measured near both ends.
Denenberg et al teaches a reference value is an average value of respective peak values of the eddy current signal measured near both ends (the two peaks occurred when each of the drive conductors were centered over the flaw and providing an average thickness response over its sensor footprint, paragraph 0019, lines 1-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lupienski et al, Newman et al and Denenberg et al before him or her, to modify the measuring of eddy current signal of Lupienski et al and Newman et al with the step of defining two peaks as an average as taught by Denenberg et al in order provide accurate prediction of quality of a material to be welded.
With regards to claim 9, Lupienski et al discloses wherein the cylindrical battery includes a case formed of aluminum or an alloy (the positive electrode foils 12 may be fabricated from copper and the negative electrode foils 52 may be fabricated from aluminum, paragraph 0011, lines 4-5).
With regards to claim 10, Lupienski et al discloses wherein: the battery is a cylindrical battery (battery cell 10 may be a cylindrical device, paragraph 0013, lines 1-3), and the measuring the eddy current signal is performed on a plane of one end where a battery tab has been welded in a cylindrical battery, and includes: a first measuring step of being performed on a first line passing through the welding portion (measuring using the first effector 30 between probes 41 and 42 at weld seam 20, Fig. 2, 3); and a second measurement step of being performed on a second line that intersects the first line at the welding portion and does not overlap with the first line (measuring using the second effector 70 between tab portion 53 and base 75 which does not overlap the first weld seam 20, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 12, Denenberg et al teaches wherein the peak value of the eddy current signal includes two peak values, and the reference value is an average value of the two peak values (as part of step 2007, but before the re-calibration data from the test object is used for re-calibration, each of the reference material may be averaged across channels (using the same peak value for each channel), or frequencies, or both), paragraph 0212, lines 5-8).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupienski et al, Newman et al and Denenberg et al as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Miura et al (US9330953).
With regards to claim 11, Lupienski et al, Newman et al and Denenberg et al does not teach wherein the measuring the eddy current signal is performed continuously over 1000 times.
Miura et al teaches wherein the measuring the eddy current signal is performed continuously over 1000 times (process, a repeated heating test in which the surface of the silicon wafer is repeatedly heated between 100° C. and 20° C. was carried out a total of 1000 times and a result, an electric discharge occurred between the terminal for applying voltage 15 and the cooling plate section 3 at the time of the 120th temperature-fall and an electric power supply was stopped due to an eddy current, col 15, lines 30-40).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lupienski et al, Newman et al,Denenberg et al and Miura et al before him or her, to modify the measuring of eddy current signal of Lupienski et al, Newman et al and Denenberg et al with the step of evaluation as taught by Miura et al in order to robustly test the quality of a newly fabricated part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended features of claim 1.
Examiner’s response: Applicant amended claim 1 to include “a peak value of the eddy current signal measured at a point other than the welding portion is set as a reference value,a minimum value of the eddy current signal measured at the welding portion is set as a physical property value, andthe determining the resistance welding quality includes calculating a difference between a reference value and the physical property value, and determining the resistance welding as being defective when the calculated value is outside a preset range”. Denenberg et al teaches a peak value of the eddy current signal measured at a point other than the welding portion is set as a reference value (eddy current sensor placed on a test object during measurement to set a nominal property of magnetic permeability as a reference, paragraph 0024, lines 1-4), a minimum value of the eddy current signal measured at the welding portion is set as a physical property value , and the determining the resistance welding quality includes calculating a difference between a reference value and the physical property value, and determining the resistance welding as being defective when the calculated value is outside a preset range (the magnetic permeability response may be a change in difference between a permeability associated with a base material portion of the test object and a permeability of a region within a heating coil covered region neighboring the weld for the magnetic permeability after PWHT when compared to the response before PWHT, paragraph 0050, lines 4-8). Applicant argues about the minimum and peak value of the eddy current signal not being taught by the prior art. Denenberg et al teaches the magnetic permeability response may be a change in difference between a permeability associated with a base material portion of the test object and a permeability of a region within a heating coil covered region neighboring the weld for the magnetic permeability after PWHT when compared to the response before PWHT (paragraph 0050, lines 4-8). The references to the magnetic permeability are monitored over time and are considered a max and min as the comparison is done during the process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761