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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 September 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 19 are amended. Claims 21-24 are amended are newly added. Claims 13 and 16-18 are cancelled. Claims 10-12 and 14-15 stand withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 19-24, as filed 2 September 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included herein.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest (claim 1) “a depth of a recess portion of the first protrusion/recess region is greater than a depth of a recess portion of the second protrusion/recess region” and fails to teach or suggest the recited outer surface of the current collector. This is not persuasive in light of new citations to the existing references and a newly cited reference, Matsumasa.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muroya (US 20200243892 A1) in view of Matsumasa (US 20200212502 A1) and Yamamoto (US 20200343518 A1).
Regarding claim 1 - claim 3, Muroya teaches a battery (abstract) comprising
an electrode assembly including an electrode plate having an electrode core body (FIG. 4 positive electrode core stacked portion 40) and an electrode active material layer (FIG. 3A positive active material layer 4b) formed on the electrode core body,
a layered portion (FIG. 6 core stacked portion 40 and [0060]) is formed by layering the electrode core body, the layered portion has a first outer surface and a second outer surface opposite to each other,
the first outer surface of the layered portion is connected to a current collector (electrode body FIG. 4 current collector 6b and [0060]) that is in a form of a plate,
a first protrusion/recess region (FIG. 7 joined portion 41) is formed in the second outer surface of the layered portion, a second protrusion/recess region (FIG. 7 thin walled portion 6e) is formed in an outer surface of the current collector located opposite to the layered portion. (as shown FIG. 7)
Muroya at FIG. 17B shows displacement of material around the ultrasonic bond area caused by the bonding process. At [0064-0065], the pressure from the horn and anvil during the bonding process causes metal forming the lead portion 6b of the current collector to be moved, causing deformation and ([0065]) an increase in width. Muroya discloses the use of a thin wall portion 6e to reduce the amount of deformation and reduce the amount of increase in width, however this Muroya does not disclose elimination of the deformation and increase in width. Examiner notes that during the bonding process, the current collector and electrode core are restrained at the bonding location by force applied to the work pieces by the horn (e.g. FIG. 6 area 6e). Metal displaced from the bond area at the location where anvil 91 intersects current collector 6b and where horn 90 intersects electrode core 40 causing deformation and width increase (as disclosed) by Muroya and therefore upward curvature of current collector 6b.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Muroya’s teaching of metal displacement will create upward curvature of current collector 6b. This also renders obvious wherein the current collector is curved at the second protrusion/recess region, and a curved portion is formed at a portion at which the layered portion and the current collector are connected to each other.
Muroya does not teach or suggest a difference in width between the second region (corresponding to the anvil) and the first region (corresponding to the horn) and therefore Muroya is silent on a width of the second protrusion/recess region is 1.3 times or more and 2.0 times or less as large as a width of the first protrusion/recess region, and a curved portion is formed at a portion at which the layered portion and the current collector are connected to each other,
Muroya does not teach or suggest a difference in depth between the second region (corresponding to the anvil) and the first region (corresponding to the horn) and therefore Muroya is silent on wherein a depth of a recess portion of the first protrusion/recess region is greater than a depth of a recess portion of the second protrusion/recess region.
Matsumasa, in the field of (abstract) ultrasonic bonding for battery electrode cores, discloses (FIG. 8B and [0090]) the use of a horn with teeth larger than those on the anvil, and vibration parallel to the surface of the electrode core to remove oxides, creating a favorable crystal state and reducing the occurrence of cracking. The person of ordinary skill would understand that a horn with larger teeth will create a deeper protrusion recess region.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a horn with larger teeth than the anvil and to select vibration parallel to the surface of the electrode core, creating a deeper protrusion/recess region, with a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing breakage.
Yamamoto, in the field of (abstract) ultrasonic welding, discloses [0041-0046] the use of an ultrasonic welding step to connect electrode terminal 20 to terminal connecting part 14 of the electrode body 10. Yamamoto discloses [0044] preventing breakage of the first terminal by adjusting the ratio of widths for upper and lower weld marks. Yamamoto explicitly teaches (FIG. 4 W2 and W3; [0016] “welding mark”, [0045]) “the ratio (WA/W2) … is preferably 1.25 or more…”. This overlaps the range of the instant claim limitation, 1.3 - 2.0, therefore creating a prima fascia case of obviousness. Examiner further notes that the width of the anvil Wa correlates to the width of the welding mark 24b, as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4. At FIG.7 and [0058] Yamamoto shows “rising deformation”, which Yamamoto also refers to as delamination.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the ultrasonic welding of Muroya with the width ratios of Yamamoto, to prevent delamination, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a bond.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 2, wherein the layered portion (261, 262) and the current collector (501) are curved in a direction in which both ends of the current collector in a width direction of the current collector come closer to the layered portion.
Regarding claim 3, claim 9, claim 19, and claim 20, Muroya in view of Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, but Muroya does not explicitly teach wherein an amount of curve of the layered portion and the current collector is more than or equal to 0.2 mm. Yamamoto teaches ([0057]) the relationship between welding mark in the depth direction and bond strength, specifically that there is a minimum bond depth required to achieve a successful bond. A person of ordinary skill would understand that if the bond force is too high (e.g. the horn meets the anode), a hole will be made in the material and the bond strength will be significantly reduced.
The displacement of metal during the bond process, and therefore creating curvature, is rendered obvious with respect to claim 1, above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the bonding depth of modified Muroya, with a reasonable expectation of achieving increased bond strength without creating a hole in the current collector, thus rendering obvious the creation of a bond with the claimed amount of curve in the current collector.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 9, wherein an amount of curve of the layered portion and the current collector is more than or equal to 3% of a width of the current collector, the limitation of claim 19, wherein the current collector is curved at the second protrusion/recess region, and a width of the second protrusion/recess region is larger than a width of the first protrusion/recess region, and a curved portion is formed at a portion at which the layered portion and the current collector are connected to each other, wherein an amount of curve of the layered portion and the current collector is more than or equal to 0.2 mm, and the limitation of claim 20, wherein the amount of curve of the layered portion and the current collector is more than or equal to 3% of a width of the current collector.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 5, Muroya in view of Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Muroya does not explicitly teach that the second protrusion/recess region of the current collector includes a first region and a second region different from the first region, and a protrusion/recess pattern of the second protrusion/recess region has shapes different between the first region and the second region.
Yamamoto teaches (H12 of FIG. 3, 22d of FIG. 4) wherein the second protrusion/recess region of the horn and anvil creates a protrusion/recess region on the current collector including a first region (22d) and a second region different from the first region, and a protrusion/recess pattern of the second protrusion/recess region has shapes different between the first region and the second region. At [0050], the use of the shorter protrusions at the edges can suppress breakage of the members. Examiner notes that the ultrasound horn and anvil having different heights and chamfering will create a corresponding pattern of protrusion/recess in the bond area.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use the chamfering of Yamamoto’s ultrasound horn for the protrusion/recess regions of modified Muroya, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining the desirable result of suppressing breakage. This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 5, wherein the first region is located at a central portion of the second protrusion/recess region in a width direction of the current collector, and the second region is located beside each of both sides of the first region, and a depth of a recess portion of the second protrusion/recess region in the first region is deeper than a depth of a recess portion of the second protrusion/recess region in the second region.
Regarding claim 6, Muroya in view of Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Muroya at (FIG. 6, FIG. 7 and [0054]) illustrates wherein a center of the second protrusion/recess region (irregularly formed portion 6x) is formed at a position displaced from a center of the current collector (6b) in a width direction of the current collector.
Regarding claim 7, Muroya in view of Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Muroya teaches (FIG. 6 FIG. 7) the protrusion/recess region is not located at the center of the current collector and does not place any particular limitation on where the protrusion/recess region may be located, however Muroya does not explicitly teach wherein the second protrusion/recess region is formed to reach an end portion of the current collector in a width direction of the current collector.
Yamamoto discloses (FIG. 4) a successful bond at the end portion of first terminal 22.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, based on the teachings of Muroya and Yamamoto, that the bond may be placed in almost any location on the current collector, and would have been motivated to select the end region of the current collector as it represents one of several identified, predictable solutions for the location of the bond on the current collector, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a successful bond.
Regarding claim 8, Muroya in view of Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, but Muroya does not explicitly teach wherein a maximum depth of a recess portion of the second protrusion/recess region is more than or equal to 0.2 mm. Yamamoto teaches ([0057]) the relationship between welding mark in the depth direction and bond strength, specifically that there is a minimum bond depth required to achieve a successful bond. A person of ordinary skill would understand that if the bond force is too high (e.g. the horn meets the anode), a hole will be made in the material and the bond strength will be significantly reduced.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the bonding depth of modified Muroya, with a reasonable expectation of achieving increased bond strength without creating a hole in the current collector, and therefore meeting the protrusion depth limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 21-24, Muroya in view of Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Muroya does not explicitly teach wherein the outer surface of the current collector located opposite to the layered portion has a first curved region beyond a periphery of the second protrusion/recess region, an inner surface of the current collector connected to the layered portion has a second curved region, the first curved region curving in a same direction as the second curved region, and the outer surface of the current collector is opposite to the inner surface of the current collector, Examiner notes that the displaced metal in the bonding process as set forth in claim 1 and incorporated herein by reference extends outside of the bond area, and therefore a person of ordinary skill would expect that the curved region will also extend outside of the bond area, therefore meeting the instant claim limitation. This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 22, wherein a bottom portion of a first recess portion in a first region of the second protrusion/recess region has a same shape as that off a bottom portion of a second recess portion in a second region of the second protrusion/recess region, and the second region is closer to a periphery of the second protrusion/recess region than the first region, and the limitations of claims 23-24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751