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 17 November 2025. As directed by applicant, claims 16-27 are amended. No claims are added or cancelled. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sinoev Hefei Tech Co LTD (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN108067801; in applicant’s IDS; herein “Sinoev”) in view of Newman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0331347), Diez (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0249606) and Deponte (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0214570).
Regarding claim 16, Sinoev discloses a clamping device (100) for simultaneously clamping a plurality of cells (Sinoev, 210) for storing electrical energy, comprising a plurality downholders (figs. 3,4; downholders 130),
wherein using each downholder (130) of the plurality of downholders, at least one a cell connector (250) can be placed on the plurality of cells without gaps at least in some sections (for pushing down without a gap),
wherein for each cell of the plurality of cells (210) a separate downholder (130) of the plurality of downholders is provided (Sinoev, Fig. 2-3; every battery has its own downholder),
wherein the downholder for each cell (130) can be tensioned against the cell of the plurality of cells (in spring tension pushing down),
wherein the plurality of downholders (Sinoev, fig. 1, clamps are on both sides of each cell) are arrangeable on two opposing surfaces of the plurality of cells,
However, Sinoev does not disclose wherein the plurality of cells are mounted so as to be pivotable or rotatable with the plurality of downholders, and
wherein, for the pivotable or rotatable mounting of the plurality of cells, the clamping device has cheeks which are rotatable or pivotable holdable on a frame of a welding device.
However, Newman teaches a clamp for “mounting” cell while they are being welded (¶0005). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sinoev with the teachings of Newman, to make sure that the cells are secure while they are being welded, so that the weds may be effected efficiently, with the least chance of error.
And while Sinoev in view of Newman teaches all of the above limitations, it still does not teach wherein the mountings are pivotable or rotatable with the plurality of downholders, and
wherein, for the pivotable or rotatable mounting of the plurality of cells, the clamping device has cheeks which are rotatable or pivotable holdable on a frame of a welding device.
Regarding that the mountings are pivotable or rotatable (and thus the cheeks, below, would be pivotable or rotatable), Diez teaches a system for holding the workpiece and making the clamping device rotatable or pivotable on a frame so it can be properly welded at the precise locations (Diez, ¶0020, [0020] “As shown in the embodiment of FIG. 1, fabrication system 100 may include a handling robot 24 and a working robot 26 configured to operate in cooperation with a work holding system 28. Handling robot 24 may be configured to pick up workpieces arriving on incoming workpiece pallet 20 and position them on work holding system 28. Working robot 26 may be configured to machine, join, measure, and/or inspect workpieces positioned on work holding system 28 by handling robot 24.” The robot arms allow for the mounting to be “pivotable or rotatable”)
And while Sinoev in view of Newman and Diez teach all of the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the clamp has “cheeks”
Regarding the “cheeks”, Deponte teaches that such cheeks are conventional to keep the cells together (Deponte, figs. 2b, 4a/4b, cheeks 17 &18). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to keep the batteries in place while they are being welded, so that they can be efficiently welded to each other to create a battery, and clamping is an efficient way of keeping things together (see, also Diez, fig. 1, clamping hand on handling robot 24)
Regarding claim 17, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as above, and further discloses a clamping device wherein the plurality of downholders is arranged or formed to be elastically tensible against the plurality of cells (Sinoev, 130, “elastic connection structure”; Translation in file, p. 4 5th to last line; p. 8, it is in a compressive state, and pushes down fix electrode slice 250).
Regarding claim 18, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as above, and further teaches a clamping device wherein the plurality of downholders have a pin-shaped or rod-shaped design (fig. 5, thin, pin-like shape makes the coil).
Regarding claim 19, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 18, as above, and further discloses a clamping device wherein the plurality of downholders are arranged so as to be inclined against the plurality of cells at an angle of less than 90° (Sinoev, figs. 3-5; apparent that the downholder 130 spring, which coils, abuts 250 at an angle of incidence much less than 90°)
Regarding claim 20, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as above, and further teaches a clamping device wherein the plurality of downholders are sleeves (Sinoev, fig. 3-5, the design shape of the coil may be a sleeve for something to fit in that area, as are elements 150 and 170 ).
Regarding claim 21, Sinoev discloses all the limitations of claim 20, as above, and further discloses a clamping device wherein the plurality of downholders have a conical design at least in some sections (Sinoev, fig. 3-5 the coil of downholder 130, elements 150 and 170, “has a conical design at least in some sections).
Regarding claim 23, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte teaches a welding device for welding at least one cell connector (Sinoev, 250) to multiple cells (210) for storing electrical energy, comprising a clamping device for clamping the cells, wherein the clamping device is formed according to claim 16 (Sinoev in view of the secondary references teaches all the limitations of claim 16, see above).
Regarding claim 24, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 23, as above, and further teaches a laser welding device comprising a laser welding device with a laser weld head (Sinoev, p. 3; 10 lines from the bottom; “laser welding device”), wherein the laser weld head is designed such that a laser beam emitted from the laser weld head reaches multiple cells.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sinoev Hefei Tech Co LTD (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN108067801; in applicant’s IDS; herein “Sinoev”) in view of Newman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0331347), Diez (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0249606) and Deponte (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0214570) and further in view of Hosokawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/ 0078413) and Zhu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180345416).
Regarding claim 22, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez, and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as above, and but does not further teach a clamping device wherein the sleeves are inlets for a process gas. However, Hosokawa teaches an inlet (20) for a processing gas in a jig for creating a battery (¶0009, 0025, “supplying the [] gas from the gas supply inlet and scanning the laser beam from the laser head”)) and Zhu teaches putting and guiding a gas though a sleeve in order to affect laser welding (Zhu, fig. 1, sleeve 2, inlet gas pipe 31, laser 11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sinoev in view of Newman Diez and Deponte with the teaching of Lee and Zhu, to have an inlet for gas processing gas running through a sleeve, in order to effectively use processing gas in the laser processing device to affect the proper laser welding in order to create the battery, the gas inlet would have the gas be directed to the proper location, given the clamp also directs the laser to the proper location, and it is conventional to use an processing gas in laser welding, thus this would be using a conventional method in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of proper laser welding (see MPEP 2143A).
Claim(s) 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sinoev Hefei Tech Co LTD (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN108067801; in applicant’s IDS; herein “Sinoev”) in view of Newman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0331347), Diez (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0249606) and Deponte (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0214570).
Regarding claim 25, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez, and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, but does not further teach a welding device comprising at least two laser weld heads. However, Sinoev does teach having a laser welding apparatus (Sinoev, p. 3; 10 lines from the bottom; “laser welding device”) its clamp mounted on both sides to secure a cell connector on both sides of the battery. Having a second welding laser would increase the speed of the creation of this part if the welding may be done simultaneously, or at least in rapid succession, without the need to move or adjust the laser to the other side of the battery before processing the clamp on the other side. Thus, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte, to be sure that both sides have a laser welding apparatus, since both sides can indeed have such a clamp, in order to increase the speed of the creation of this part if the welding may be done simultaneously, or at least in rapid succession, without the need to move or adjust the laser to the other side of the battery before processing the clamp on the other side.
Regarding claim 26, Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez, and Deponte teaches all the limitations of claim 25, as above, and further teaches, in this combination, a device wherein the at least two laser weld heads (4) are assigned to opposing surfaces of the cells (Sinoev, see combination above, and rejection of claim 25).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sinoev Hefei Tech Co LTD (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN108067801; in applicant’s IDS; herein “Sinoev”) in view of Fees (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0108886).
Regarding claim 27, Sinoev discloses a method for materially bonding at least one cell connector (250) to cells (210) for storing electrical energy by means of a welding device (p. 3; 10 lines from the bottom; “laser welding device”) according to which a laser beam from a laser weld head (p. 3; 10 lines from the bottom; “laser welding device”) of the welding device is directed at the cell connector, and the cells are held in a clamping device, wherein multiple cells (multiple cells 210) are reached by the laser beam… and wherein a welding device according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23) is used as the welding device, but does not further teach so that multiple cells are connected to the cell connector or the cell connectors without the laser weld head and the cell connector being moved. However, Fees teaches that multiple cells are connected to the cell connector or the cell connectors without the laser weld head and the cell connector being moved (Fees, ¶173, a conventional laser typically includes a single beam, which may be used to weld at one particular point or along on particular line…[or]… a diode laser may be used to weld a defined pattern over a broader area.” The contact plate connects many cells, fig. 1, and the single laser moves over them so they are heated simultaneously, with no indication of the laser head moving). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sinoev in view of Newman, Diez and Deponte with the teachings of Fees, to connect the cells and cell connector without the laser head being moved, in order to weld simultaneously and quickly a plurality of cells with the same laser head, and this would cut out time for moving the laser head and readjustment (See also, Hosokawa, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/ 0078413, fig. 1, that teaches that a laser head (not moving) can focus a laser for battery processing in multiple directions).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 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, in light of the amendments, art was combined to show that securing and positioning workpieces via a clamp is not novel.
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