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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 12 November 2025. As directed by applicant, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13,and 14 are amended. No claims are added or cancelled. This is a Final Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the specification, the claim’s language of “a wobble pattern” in claim 14, etc. (e.gs. “a first wobble pattern” or “a second wobble pattern”) means a single circular shape that may keep repeating (Specification p. 8/19, lines 1-5, see fig. 5). “A double wobble pattern” or “a Snowman wobble pattern” means having two circular shapes that may keep repeating (Specification, p. 9/19, lines 1- 7, see fig. 7).
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16 and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites “a weld of the first member and the second member” in line 4. It is unclear if this is the weld described in the limitation “ wherein the first member and second member are weld-coupled to each other” in the immediately previous line (claim 1 line 3), or if this is a new weld being formed between the parts. For purposes of examination, this “a weld” in line 4 is describing the weld that weld-coupled the parts together in line 3. Clarification is required. Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 18 depend on claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “a first wobble pattern on the module frame and having a first wobble parameter with a first radius value, and a second wobble pattern on the end plate and having a second wobble parameter with a second radius value, and wherein the second wobble parameter is greater than the first wobble parameter” in lines 9-12. It is unclear what “a first wobble parameter with a first radius value” and “a second wobble parameter with a second radius value” means. It seems that “wobble parameters” should be distinct from the “radius values”, that each of the “wobble patterns” has a “wobble parameter” WITH a “radius value”. It is not clear how that last limitation “wherein the second wobble parameter is greater than the first wobble parameter” is supposed to be met. The limitation itself indicates that the “wobble parameter” is meant to be a value, and not something else, like a shape, for instance (circle vs. ellipse). And it seems that applicant intended, in the last line of the claim, that the “second radius” be larger than the “first radius”, as is indicated in the Specification (Specification, 9 of 19, lines 19-26). However, applicant claims that the “second wobble parameter” is greater than the “first wobble parameter”, which seems to indicate something else, some other value besides the radii is being discussed, as the “first radius value” and the “second radius value” were not claimed, but the “wobble parameters” were. As well, for example, the specification indicates that there may be other “wobble parameters”, such as “welding energy density”, but in this case, the specification specifies that first wobble parameter (i.e. the energy density on the frame) should be greater than the second (i.e. the energy density on the end; see Specification p. 4 of 19, lines 23-25). Clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites, wherein the Snowman wobble pattern comprises “double wobble pattern” in line 2. Now, claim 14 recites that the wobble pattern includes “a first wobble pattern” and “a second wobble pattern”. It is unclear if the double wobble pattern in claim 15 is newly introduced, or if this the wobble pattern introduced having two parts in claim 14, which the specification has support for. For purposes of examination, it will be understood to be the latter. Claim 16 depends on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoshida (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/ 0128514).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a coupling structure comprising:
a first member (15, fig. 3) and a second member (16) which are adjacent to each other,
wherein the first member and second member are weld-coupled to each other,
wherein a weld of the first member and the second member comprises
a first part of the weld formed in the first member (weld formed on 15, Figs. 3A) and
a second part of the weld formed in the second member (weld formed in 16, Fig. 3A) with respect to a coupling surface of the first member and the second member, and
wherein the first part of the weld and the second part of the weld have a mutually asymmetrical shape (Fig. 3A, the weld curves).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a coupling structure wherein a curve of a vertical cross-section of the second part comprises a point of inflection (Point of inflection within weld on 16, fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses a coupling structure wherein the asymmetrical shape of the first welding part and the second welding part is defined with respect to a surface which is perpendicular to a welding advancing direction (Yoshida, the advancing of the laser beam would be along the edge, but the asymmetrical shape is perpendicular to that movement).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yoshida (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/ 0128514) in view of Lee (WIPO Patent Application Publication WO2019107764; In applicant’s IDS; citations from equivalent U.S. Application Publication 2021/ 0126313).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida discloses all the limitations of claim 2, but does not further disclose a coupling structure wherein the first member is an extruded material component or a plate material component, and the second member is a die-casting component. However, Lee teaches wherein the first member is an extruded material component or a plate material component, and the second member is a die-casting component. (Lee, ¶0008, module housing is made by “an extrusion method”, and end plates are made by “a die-casting method”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshida with the teachings of Lee, to have the first and second members made, as claimed, to use a conventional method making these parts in a conventional way to achieve the conventional result of a battery pack that is able to be welded together.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a coupling structure wherein the first member and the second member have mutually different properties. However, Lee does teach that different material may be used for the housing (first member) and the endplates (second member (Lee, ¶0062, first member is steel or aluminum, particular aluminum; ¶0078, the end plate body “may include a metal material, such as steel or aluminum. Alternatively, the body frame may include an electric insulating material, [such as] a plastic material, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC)), and if different materials were used for the respective parts, then they would have different properties. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yoshida with a teaching of Lee, to have different materials making up the two different parts, either having the first part made of aluminum and the second part made of stee, or that the second part is made of insulating material, in order to use available parts and to impart the properties and the weldability and the desired insulation to the different parts (such as it is desirable to have more insulation on the ends rather than the large outer housing because a malfunction with the metal is less likely on the module housing).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida discloses a battery module (Yoshida, fig. 1, sealed battery, abstract) comprising: Yoshida 15) formed in the module frame and a second welding part (Yoshida 16) formed in the end plate, with respect to a coupling surface of the module frame and the end plate, and wherein the first welding part and the second welding part have a mutually asymmetrical shape (Yoshida, fig. 3A).
Yoshida does not disclose a cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells; a module frame which houses the plurality of battery cell stacks, and of which one side and the other side facing each other are opened; and an end plate coupled to the module frame through welding on one side and the other side of the module frame. However, Lee teaches a cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells (Lee, claim 1, “cell assembly comprising a plurality of secondary batteries”); a module frame (220) which houses the plurality of battery cell stacks, and of which one side and the other side facing each other are opened; and an end plate (230) coupled to the module frame through welding on one side and the other side of the module frame (Abstract, “fixed” to each other by welding is “weld-coupled”; ¶0009, “endplate are welded to an end portion”). Yoshida discloses how to weld in the context of a battery a sealing plate to the outer can, but , but Lee actually specifies the different parts. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yoshida with the teachings of Lee, to weld together the specific parts of the battery casing, in order to weld together, in a conventional way, the pieces and to have the expected result of a welded battery case.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further discloses a battery module wherein a curve of a vertical cross-section of the second welding part comprises a point of inflection (Yoshida, Inflection point in weld, fig. 3A).
.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 7, but does not further teach a battery module wherein the module frame is an extruded material component or a plate material component, and the end plate is a die-casting component. However, Lee teaches wherein the first member is an extruded material component or a plate material component, and the second member is a die-casting component. (Lee, ¶0008, module housing is made by “an extrusion method”, and end plates are made by “a die-casting method”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshida with the teachings of Lee, to have the first and second members made, as claimed, to use a conventional method making these parts in a conventional way to achieve the conventional result of a battery pack that is able to be welded together.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, and further discloses a battery module wherein the asymmetrical shape of the first welding part and the second welding part is defined with respect to a surface which is perpendicular to a welding advancing direction (Yoshida, the advancing of the laser beam would be along the edge, but the asymmetrical shape is perpendicular to that movement).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further discloses a battery module wherein the module frame comprises a first joining surface (surface on 15) formed in a part coupled to the end plate (which is combined from Lee already), the end plate comprises a second joining surface (surface on 16) corresponding to the first joining surface and formed in a part coupled to the module frame, and a recessed portion (22) is formed on at least one of the first joining surface and the second joining surface.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teaches a battery module wherein the recessed portion is recessed in a direction that is perpendicular to the first joining surface or the second joining surface (Yoshida, recessed horizontally, where first joining and second joining surface are vertical) .
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a battery module wherein the recessed portion is spaced apart from a periphery of the first joining surface or a periphery of the second joining surface (Fig. 3A, that the bottom of 22 is spaced apart from a surface 16 that is above the recessed portion).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and but does not further teach a battery module wherein the end plate further comprises a protrusion part that is located at the end plate and located closer to the module frame than the second joining surface. However, Lee further teaches a battery module wherein the end plate further comprises a protrusion part (fig. 3, protrusion of 233 off the end plate protruding in) that is located at a more central side of the end plate than the second joining surface and is extended toward that the module frame. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yoshida in view of Lee with a further teaching of Lee, to have a protrusion from an endplate extend from 15 into 16, in order to make the surfaces more integral and better coupled together so they overlap and intertwine, so that when they are welded, they make a better, integrated bond, such as in Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches the battery module of claim 6, but not a battery pack. However, Lee teaches a battery pack (Lee, ¶0024, a battery pack including at least one battery module). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yoshida in view of Lee with a further teaching of Lee, to have the battery module part of a battery pack, in order to be more efficient with energy, to be able to charge larger things with more energy requirements, and to use a conventional method in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of a battery pack with battery modules.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, and further teach a coupling structure wherein the mutually different properties include differences in surface reflectance (Lee, above, since the structure could potentially be different metals, for instance aluminum and steel, and they have different reflectivity, and the decision of using such metals would depend on the applicant’s intention, see that these materials have different reflectivity, see evidence in Stanford Advanced Materials, “Reflectivity in Physics and Engineering”, retrieved from https://www.samaterials.com/blog/reflectivity-in-physics-and-engineering.html).
No art is being applied against claims 14, 15, and 16. But in light of the §112 rejections above, further search and/or consideration may be required upon response and/or amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, a new reference was applied to reject claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761