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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant submits that Matsumoto does not teach or suggest the joining portion of claim 4. Applicant submits that in Matsumoto, the welding portion 751a is continuously formed over the entire circumference along a boundary portion between an outer circumferential surface of the flange portion 753c of the connection terminal 753 and an inner circumferential surface of the large diameter portion 752e of the metal body 752 (paragraph [0123] and FIG. 12C of Matsumoto), and the welding portion 751 of Matsumoto is not formed at a bottom portion in the recessed portion that overlaps a further recessed portion overlapping the recessed portion in a thickness direction of the second metal as claimed.
However, in the rejection below, Matsumoto is modified by Yamamoto to provide a further recessed portion. Annotated fig. 12C below shows the area where the further recess is formed. Annotated fig. 12C also shows the location of the welding portion 751a corresponding to a joining portion in a bottom portion in the recessed portion. Furthermore, the thickness direction of the second metal, as shown in the annotated fig. 12C, is the vertical direction in the figure. The further recessed portion is formed above the joining portion (formed in the bottom portion in the recessed portion), and therefore the two portions are overlapping in the vertical direction, which is the thickness direction of the second metal.
PNG
media_image1.png
457
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2) Applicant submits that the proposed combination of Matsumoto and Yamamoto is improper because Yamamoto does not teach a technique for joining two components that constitute a terminal, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to apply Yamamoto's ultrasonic welding to Matsumoto for the reasons detailed below:
(2.1) Applicant submits Yamamoto teaches that by forming multiple recesses of different depths, foreign matter such as tiny metal fragments, is restricted to the deeper recess and would not cause micro-shorts inside the electrode body (see, e.g., Yamamoto; page 6, paragraph 1, page 2, paragraph 2). However, these problems and benefits are specific to Yamamoto's context of joining stacked electrode plates (the convergence portion 126) to the current collector 140. Matsumoto does not involve joining a convergence portion formed by stacking electrode plates and does not employ ultrasonic bonding for the terminal components. Therefore, the problems that Yamamoto address, i.e., micro-short circuits inside the electrode body caused by metal fragments from scraping stacked electrode foils, would not arise in Matsumoto's terminal structure.
While Matsumoto discloses a joining portion different from the elements being joined disclosed by Yamamoto, the application of Matsumoto and Yamamoto are both in the context of batteries wherein short circuits are a safety issue. Yamamoto discloses the joining portion of electrode plates, which are closer to the area of short circuit concern. However, although the joining portion of Matsumoto is at the terminal, there is still a concern of foreign matter traveling from the terminal to the to internal battery components, especially when the weld is formed on an internal surface facing the internal electrode body. Therefore, the motivation disclosed by Yamamoto of suppressing foreign material for preventing short circuits applies to Matsumoto.
Moreover, any foreign material in the vicinity of battery materials is undesirable. Yamamoto discloses that foreign matter is restricted using the ultrasonic welding method (see e.g., Yamamoto; page 6), and therefore improves the reliability of the storage element (see e.g., Yamamoto; page 7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also have used the method of Yamamoto to modify Matsumoto according to the comprehensive motivation of decreasing foreign matter for general reliability of the storage element.
(2.2.) Applicant submits one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to adopt ultrasonic joining instead of laser welding, thereby abandoning the specific advantages discussed in paragraph [0125] of Matsumoto.
However, for the same reasons as described above, specifically the advantages of preventing short circuits, suppressing foreign matter, and improving reliability, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the motivation to adopt ultrasonic joining instead of laser welding. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to forgo low cost and ease of manufacturing as described in Matsumoto [0125] in order to increase quality by suppressing foreign matter and improving reliability.
Applicant submits that the structure of Matsumoto is impossible to apply ultrasonic welding; the joining location is within a recessed hole structure where a horn cannot physically access the inner circumferential surface to apply pressure and vibration, and a gap exists between the metal body 752 and the end portion of the terminal 753 in the vertical direction.
Firstly, the two metal components disclosed by Matsumoto may be ultrasonically welded because a horn and an anvil can hold the two parts. For example, the metal 752 may be in contact with a horn from the top side, and the metal 753 may be held by an anvil on the other side. That is, the horn element does not have to be positioned inside the circumferential surface to apply pressure and vibration. The horn can provide pressure and vibration from the outer face of metal 752 in order to weld the inside and contacting portions of metals 752 and 753. The anvil is a securing element that holds the second part in position to prevent movement, so the anvil may hold metal 753 prior to installation into the battery case, or the anvil may hold the section of the battery connected to the metal 753 such that the part remains stationary relative to the horn with metal 752. Therefore, the portion of Matsumoto may be ultrasonically welded.
Secondly, the gap shown in Matsumoto fig. 12C is a thin gap such that metal-to-metal contact may still occur. Matsumoto does not disclose in the specification the specific motivation, specific dimensions, or particular importance of the gap. Therefore, Yamamoto may still be applied to Matsumoto to ultrasonically weld the section. Additionally, even if the head of portion 753 does not contact the metal 752, the edge of the head portion and the faces of the metal 753 do contact the metal 752 as shown in figure 12C. Therefore, even if the gap were to prevent the head of the metal portion from contact, the edges and faces may still be welded when ultrasonic welding is applied.
Applicant submits that amended claim 5 which recites “the frame-shaped joining area has a rectangular shape as viewed along the thickness direction of the second metal” is not disclosed by Matsumoto. However, Matsumoto discloses that metal body 752 has a “substantially rectangular flat block shape when seen in a plan view” (see e.g., Matsumoto; [0121]); plan view is a top down view of the part which is in the thickness direction of the second metal as claimed. That is, the frame-shaped joining area having a rectangular shaped is encompassed by the plan view rectangular shape of the metal body 752. While the welding portion 751a is circular, the frame-shaped joining area as claimed is disclosed by Matsumoto.
Applicant submits regarding claim 6 that the ultrasonic welding would not be formed due to the gap. However, the same reasoning applied above regarding the gap applies to claim 6.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US-20170229700-A1), and in further view of Yamamoto (WO-2017057200-A1) (see translation).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches a terminal component (see e.g., Matsumoto; [0118]-[0119] regarding seventh embodiment), comprising: a first metal including a shaft portion (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C), and a flange portion extending outwardly from an end of the shaft portion (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C); and a second metal including a recessed portion in which the flange portion of the first metal is housed (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C), wherein a joining portion is formed at a boundary of the first metal and the second metal (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C, [0123] regarding welding portion 751a), the joining portion is formed at a bottom portion in the recessed portion (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C), the joining portion includes a frame-shaped joining area (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C; the joining portion is frame-shaped because the portion is surrounded by the first metal, the second metal, and the gasket 130).
PNG
media_image2.png
794
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a further recessed portion overlapping the recessed portion in a thickness direction of the second metal wherein the further recessed portion is located at a surface of the second metal, said surface of the second metal being opposite to a surface at which the recessed portion is located in the thickness direction of the second metal, and wherein the joining portion is formed by ultrasonic joining. However, Yamamoto teaches an ultrasonic joining method (see e.g., Yamamoto; page 14 paragraph 3, page 15 paragraph 2, page 16 paragraph 2, regarding ultrasonic forming) that forms a joining portion between an electrode body and a current collector wherein the joining tool comprises of a plurality of protrusions that form a plurality of recesses in the contacted material (see e.g., Yamamoto; page 5 paragraph 3, figs. 5-9 regarding the tool with protrusions that creates recesses in the material). The joining tool is similar to the horn 100 in the instant application and the formed recesses caused by the protrusions can be correlated with the further recessed portion of the second metal. In other words, Yamamoto may be combined with Matsumoto by applying the ultrasonic joining method of Yamamoto to the first and second metal disclosed by Matsumoto. The joining tool comprising of the joining tip 520 with protrusions (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 8) may be applied to the top surface of the second metal (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C) such that at least one further recessed portion is formed in that top surface, similar to how recesses are formed as shown in Yamamoto using the tool (see e.g., Yamamoto; figs. 5-6, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the ultrasonic joining method disclosed by Yamamoto to the terminal component disclosed by Matsumoto such that a further recessed portion is formed, wherein the further recessed portion overlaps the recessed portion in a thickness direction of the second metal and wherein the further recessed portion is located at a surface of the second metal, said surface of the second metal being opposite to a surface at which the recessed portion is located in the thickness direction of the second metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yamamoto teaches that by forming multiple recesses of different depths, foreign matter such as tiny metal fragments, is restricted to the deeper recess and would not cause micro-shorts inside the electrode body (see e.g., Yamamoto; page 6 paragraph 1, page 2 paragraph 2).
The modification would result in the joining portion formed at a bottom portion in the recessed portion that overlaps the further recessed portion.
Regarding claim 5, modified Matsumoto teaches the terminal component according to claim 4, wherein the frame-shaped joining area has a rectangular shape as viewed along the thickness direction of the second metal (see e.g., Matsumoto; Annotated Fig. 12C above regarding claim 4, regarding metal 752 which forms a rectangular enclosure around the flange 753c for the joining portion, [0121] regarding metal body 752 that has a “substantially rectangular flat block shape when seen in a plan view”; plan view is a top down view of the part which is in the thickness direction of the second metal).
Regarding claim 6, modified Matsumoto teaches the terminal component according to claim 4. Modified Matsumoto teaches the ultrasonic joining above regarding claim 4. Matsumoto also teaches wherein the joining portion further includes an inner joining area, in which the first metal and the second metal are joined together, inside the frame-shaped joining area (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C; the inner joining area may be a region inside the joining portion as described).
PNG
media_image3.png
806
889
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, modified Matsumoto teaches the terminal component according to claim 4, wherein the terminal component is configured for a secondary battery (see e.g., [0121] regarding prismatic secondary battery 700) including an electrode body including a positive electrode and a negative electrode (see e.g., [0120] regarding external terminals of a positive electrode and a negative electrode), a battery case housing the electrode body therein (see e.g., fig. 12C, [0055] regarding battery case 101), a positive electrode terminal electrically connected to the positive electrode of the electrode body, and a negative electrode terminal electrically connected to the negative electrode of the electrode body (see e.g., fig. 12A regarding positive electrode terminal 141 and negative electrode terminal 151, [0120] regarding positive and negative electrode with external terminals disposed on one surface of a prismatic battery container and a flat wound group is built in the battery container, [0059] regarding how a positive electrode terminal is connected to a positive electrode 174 and the negative electrode external terminal 151 is electrically connected to a negative electrode 175 of the flat wound group 170), and the terminal component is included in at least one of the positive electrode terminal or the negative electrode terminal (see e.g., fig. 12C, [0151] regarding negative electrode external terminal 751), the first metal is disposed inside the battery case and electrically connected to the electrode body (see e.g., Annotated fig. 13C regarding first metal 753 which extends inside the battery case 101 and electrically connected and in contact with negative electrode current collector 190), and the second metal is exposed outside the battery case and connected to an external connection potion (see e.g., Annotated fig. 13C regarding second metal 752 on the outside of battery case 101, [0121] and fig. 12A regarding the top of 751 which is the second metal 752 welded to bus bar 1000 which is an external connection portion).
Regarding claim 10, modified Matsumoto teaches the terminal component according to claim 4. Modified Matsumoto also teaches the further recessed portion with the applied ultrasonic joining method disclosed by Yamamoto as described above regarding claim 4. In this further recessed portion, a further bottom portion may be defined and the bounds of the joining portion may be expanded to include the further bottom portion. As shown in annotated fig. 12C below, after the application of the ultrasonic joining tool disclosed by Yamamoto, an arbitrarily defined rectangular further bottom portion in the further recessed portion may also be considered as part of the joining portion because that is the area where the joining tool is applied.
PNG
media_image4.png
804
930
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, modified Matsumoto also teaches the joining portion is further formed at a further bottom portion in the further recessed portion. The modification is not repeated because regarding claim 4 above already describes the structural modification needed to create these portions, so this section serves to describe how the structural modification may correlate with instant claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Matsumoto teaches the terminal component according to claim 10. As before, modified Matsumoto teaches the further recessed portion with a further bottom portion as described above regarding claims 4 and 10. As described above regarding claim 10, the further bottom portion in the further recessed portion may have a rectangular shape, which may also be rectangular as viewed along the thickness direction (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C). The applied modification with Yamamoto above regarding claim 4 further supports this rectangular shape because Yamamoto discloses a square shaped tool with a plurality of protrusions which creates the further recessed portion (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 8). Additionally, the bottom portion in the recessed portion may also be defined as a circular shape as viewed along the thickness direction (see e.g., Annotated fig. 12C). This is further supported Matsumoto because Matsumoto emphasizes that the welding portion goes around the circumference of the flange in a circular shape (see e.g., Matsumoto; [0123]).
PNG
media_image5.png
775
933
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US-20170229700-A1) and Yamamoto (WO-2017057200-A1) (see translation) as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Inoue (US-20150147598-A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Matsumoto teaches the terminal component according to claim 6. Modified Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the inner joining area includes a plurality of square-shaped joining portions as viewed along the thickness direction. However, Inoue discloses that an ultrasonic welding device may have a horn with a plurality of protrusions that are square-shaped and thus leave a plurality of square-shaped recesses (see e.g., [0057], figs. 9-11). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasonic welding and inner joining area taught by modified Matsumoto with the plurality of square-shaped protrusions to create square-shaped joining portions as viewed along the thickness direction disclosed by Inoue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide good welding strength (see e.g., Inoue; [0007]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728