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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5 May 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 5 May 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1 and 14-16 are amended and claims 18-20 are added. No claims have been cancelled. This is a Non-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 § 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 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yoshida (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/ 0128514) in view Wu (Chinese Patent Publication CN107414293A; in Applicant’s IDS; English translation of Specification Attached).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida 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), but Lee does not disclose wherein the parts of the weld are “defined by a Snowman wobble pattern including a first wobble pattern on the first part and a second wobble pattern on the second part.
However, Wu teaches a welding method of a Snowman wobble pattern (Wu, figs. 4a, 4b). 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 Wu, to substitute in a “snowman wobble pattern” for the welding, having a first wobble pattern on the first or second part, and a second wobble pattern on the other of the first or second part, in order to better weld the metals, going back and forth and oscillating the laser, in order to melt more of the materials so that there is a better bond between the materials, and this would be a conventional method used in a conventional way to achieve the conventional result of welding materials together (See MPEP 2143A).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida in view of Wu teaches 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 in view of Wu teaches 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).
Claims 3, 5-13, 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) and Wu (Chinese Patent Publication CN107414293A; in Applicant’s IDS; English translation of Specification Attached).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida in view of Wu teaches 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 in view of Wu teaches 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 in view of Wu 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, nor wherein the Snowman pattern is “defined by a Snowman wobble pattern including a first wobble pattern on the first part and a second wobble pattern on the second part.”
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.
And while Yoshida in view of Lee teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach a Snowman wobble pattern defined by a Snowman wobble pattern including a first wobble pattern on the first part and a second wobble pattern on the second part.
However, Wu teaches a welding method of a Snowman wobble pattern (Wu, figs. 4a, 4b). 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 the teachings of Wu, to substitute in a “snowman wobble pattern” for the welding, having a first wobble pattern on the first or second part, and a second wobble pattern on the other of the first or second part, in order to better weld the metals, going back and forth and oscillating the laser, in order to melt more of the materials so that there is a better bond between the materials, and this would be a conventional method used in a conventional way to achieve the conventional result of welding materials together (See MPEP 2143A).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida in view of Lee and Wu 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 and Wu 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 and Wu 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 and Wu 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 and Wu 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 and Wu 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 and Wu 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee (WIPO Patent Application Publication WO2019107764; In applicant’s IDS; citations from equivalent U.S. Application Publication 2021/ 0126313) in view of Wu (Chinese Patent Publication CN107414293A; in Applicant’s IDS; English translation of Specification Attached) and Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0376598).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses a method for manufacturing a battery module, the method comprising: mounting a battery cell stack (100) comprising a plurality of battery cells on a module frame (Lee, 220), of which one side and another side facing each other are opened (Lee, fig. 2, Abstract, end portions are combined to at least one end of the housing module, see end plates in fig. 1, and one coming off in fig. 2, frame has two open ends); and coupling an end plate (230) to the module frame on one side and the another side of the module frame;
But Lee does not disclose that wherein the coupling of the module frame and the end plate uses a welding method of a Snowman wobble pattern, nor
wherein the Snowman wobble pattern includes a first wobble pattern applied to the module frame and having a first wobble parameter, and a second wobble pattern applied to the end plate and having a second wobble parameter, and wherein the second wobble parameter is greater than the first wobble parameter.
However, Wu teaches wherein the coupling of the module frame and the end plate uses a welding method of a Snowman wobble pattern (Wu, figs. 4a, 4b). 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 the teachings of Wu, to substitute in a “snowman wobble pattern” for the welding, having a first wobble pattern on the first or second part, and a second wobble pattern on the other of the first or second part, in order to better weld the metals, going back and forth and oscillating the laser, in order to melt more of the materials so that there is a better bond between the materials, and this would be a conventional method used in a conventional way to achieve the conventional result of welding materials together (See MPEP 2143A).
And while Lee in view of Wu teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the Snowman wobble pattern includes a first wobble pattern applied to the module frame and having a first wobble parameter, and a second wobble pattern applied to the end plate and having a second wobble parameter, and wherein the second wobble parameter is greater than the first wobble parameter. However, It is already noted that Wu teaches that the Snowman wobble pattern is conventional, that “wherein the Snowman wobble pattern includes a first wobble pattern applied to the module frame and having a first wobble parameter, and a second wobble pattern applied to the end plate and having a second wobble parameter (the “wobble parameters” may be a circumference or a radius or an angle, for instance). However, Watanabe teaches that there may be variations in the circumference of the figure eight shape and that one outer portion may have an elliptical shape (Watanabe, figs. 16A-16B; ¶80, “That is, even in this alternative, the plurality of connecting portions 10 form a network structure. An outer circumferential portion of the figure eight shape may have an elliptical shape.”). Now, the art reads on the claims because it may be understood, that the elliptical shape may be either the top wobble or the bottom wobble, depending on what the “wobble parameter” is because the “second wobble parameter” must be larger than the “first wobble parameter” (see figs. A & B, below, where the second wobble parameter is bigger than the first wobble parameter in both figures). 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 and Wu, with the teaching of Watanabe, to laser process in a conventional Snowman- wobble way, even with some variation in one parameters, where even “, a strong weld between the parts, and with routine experimentation, achieving only the expected result of a strong weld.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee (WIPO Patent Application Publication WO2019107764; In applicant’s IDS; citations from equivalent U.S. Application Publication 2021/ 0126313) in view of Wu (Chinese Patent Publication CN107414293A; in Applicant’s IDS; English translation of Specification Attached) and Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0376598) and further in view of Si (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0121422).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Wu and Watanabe teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but teaches a welding method wherein the welding method of the Snowman wobble pattern comprises double wobble pattern (Wu, fig. 4b), but does not further teach a welding energy density that is applied to the module frame is larger than a welding energy density that is applied to the end plate. However, Si teaches that when applying energy to a weld, to apply more energy to the material with the higher melting point (Si ¶0006, more heat to the material with the high melting point), and Lee (Primary Reference) already teaches that the materials of the frame and the end pieces may be different, and that the frame is metal, steel or aluminum, but the end pieces may even be non-metal (Lee, ¶0062, first member is steel or 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)). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee in view of Wu with the teachings of Si, to have “a welding energy density that is applied to the module frame is larger than a welding energy density that is applied to the end plate”, because it would be obvious to have the endplates and the frame be different materials, and the frame module would have a higher melting point thus it would make sense to focus, more energy there, as per the teaching of Lee, in order to have a good weld between the material.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yoshida (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/ 0128514) in view Wu (Chinese Patent Publication CN107414293A; in Applicant’s IDS; English translation of Specification Attached) and further in view of Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0376598).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida in view of Wu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the first wobble pattern includes a circular shape and the second wobble pattern includes an elliptical shape. It is already noted that Wu teaches that the Snowman wobble pattern is conventional. However, Watanabe teaches that there may be variations in the circumference of the figure eight shape and that an outer portion may have an elliptical shape (Watanabe, figs. 16A-16B; ¶80, “That is, even in this alternative, the plurality of connecting portions 10 form a network structure. An outer circumferential portion of the figure eight shape may have an elliptical shape.”). 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 and Wu, with the teaching of Watanabe, to laser process in a conventional Snowman- wobble way, even with some variation in one of the circles/ellipses in order to affect a strong weld between the parts, and with routine experimentation, achieving only the expected result of a strong weld.
Claim 20 is 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) and Wu (Chinese Patent Publication CN107414293A; in Applicant’s IDS; English translation of Specification Attached) and further in view of Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0343265).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshida in view of Lee and Wu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the first wobble pattern includes a circular shape and the second wobble pattern includes an elliptical shape. It is already noted that Wu teaches that the Snowman wobble pattern is conventional. However, Watanabe teaches that there may be variations in the circumference of the figure eight shape and that an outer portion may have an elliptical shape (Watanabe, figs. 16A-16B; ¶80, “That is, even in this alternative, the plurality of connecting portions 10 form a network structure. An outer circumferential portion of the figure eight shape may have an elliptical shape.”). 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 and Wu, with the teaching of Watanabe, to laser process in a conventional Snowman- wobble way, even with some variation in one of the circles/ellipses in order to affect a strong weld between the parts, and with routine experimentation, achieving only the expected result of a strong weld.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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. Specifically, this claim, in light of the claims it is dependent on, is not obvious over the prior art.
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 and a new reference was applied to reject the “ellipse” limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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
Prosecution Insights