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 .
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.
Claim 11-16, 19 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 11 recites the limitation “the battery cell” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is understood as -a battery cell-.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the determining whether the bent state of each of the electrode leads is at the predetermined angle further includes, when the bent state of each of the electrode leads is determined to be at a different angle than the predetermined angle, bending the electrode leads again.” It is not clear how a determining step (i.e. ”determining whether the bend state, etc,”) can “further include” a “bending” step. It is understood that once the determining step determines the bent state to be at a different angle than the predetermined angle, the method further comprises a further step of “bending the electrode leads again”, not that the bending is encompassed in the “determining” step. Clarification is required.
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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the limitation is not disclosed by the reference]
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Chinese Patent Publication CN106271083A; in applicant’s IDS, English disclosure attached) in view of Angerer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0153148) and Ikeda (U.S. Patent 7,802,456).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an electrode lead bending and welding apparatus (Li, figs. 1-2, p. 2 par. 4) comprising:
a base portion (Li, p. 2 pars. 14 & 15, front roller bracket 5) movable in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (movable in all directions for placement and bending of the tab;
a bending portion (rollers 3, fig. 2) attached to the base portion and extending away from the base portion; and
wherein a welding between an electrode lead and a busbar of a battery is performed in a state in which the electrode lead is bent by the bending portion (p. 3, par. 5, the tab is bent and then the laser does the welding of the tab to the busbar), and
wherein the bending portion (Li, roller 3 ) is attached to the base portion (5) such that the base portion and the bending portion move together in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (fig. 2, move together).
However, Li does not disclose a sensing portion attached to the bending portion and configured to be rotatable.
However, Angerer teaches a sensing portion configured to be rotatable determine the angles of metal pieces. (figs. 3, 6, sensors 39, Abstract, “determining an angular position of at least one limb” produced from metal). The advantage here would be to determine that all the electrode leads are bent to ensure it is properly prepared for welding. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Li with the teachings of Angerer, to have a sensor on the bent lead, to have be able to determine the angle of the bend electrode to ensure it is properly bent and prepared for welding.
And while Li in view of Angerer teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the sensing portion is attached to the bending portion. However, Ikeda, in his invention for measuring the angle of bent metal, teaches that the sensing portion is attached to the bending portion (and not to the metal workpiece itself) (Ikeda, fig. 19, column 19 lines 28-38,with this mechanical means, measuring δ1 and δ2 with angle detecting device 102 on each side of the die D) and calculating the sum of the angles; the workpiece bending device is used in the workpiece bending machine 101, and is attached thereto, fig. 1). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Li in view of Angerer with the teachings of Ikeda, to have the sensing portion attached to the bending portion, in order to have the sensing portion immediately next to the bending portion, but the at the same time, to have it prepared to quickly measure future metal pieces, so it is ready for further processes.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Chinese Patent Publication CN106271083A; in applicant’s IDS, English disclosure attached) in view of Angerer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0153148) and Ikeda (U.S. Patent 7,802,456) and further in view of Pelaprat (U.S. Patent Application publication 2017/ 0341144).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Angerer, and Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach an electrode lead bending and welding apparatus comprising a vision camera configured to inspect a welded state between the electrode lead and the busbar. However, Pelaprat teaches an apparatus comprising a vision camera configured to inspect a welded state between the electrode lead and the busbar (Pelaprat ¶¶0003, 0037, fig. 1, Welding buss bars…electrodes.. and “cameras, can be used to check the quality of the weld”). Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Li in view of Angerer, and Ikeda teaches with the teachings of Pelaprat, to have the welds be monitored and inspected/check via a camera, in order to be able to assess the quality of the weld, even from a distance, in order to move on to the next process, and this is a faster and more efficient way of checking the quality of the weld.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Chinese Patent Publication CN106271083A; in applicant’s IDS, English disclosure attached) in view of Angerer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0153148) and Ikeda (U.S. Patent 7,802,456) and further in view of Guo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0144582)
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Angerer and Ikeda teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an electrode lead bending and welding apparatus, wherein one bending portion having one sensing portion coupled thereto is attached to the base portion to constitute a unit member (this is the combination of Li in view of Angerer and Ikeda), but does not further teach wherein a plurality of unit members are assembled with each other. However, Guo does teach a plurality of members are assembled with each other (Guo, figs. 6a-6c, elements 112 move together to assemble a plurality of batteries elements 56). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li in view of Angerer and Ikeda, with the teachings of Guo, in order to have multiple bending units assembled with each other in order to be able to effectively bend and weld electrodes and batteries together at the same time, and more than one to the same busbar, in to be more efficient, and create more quickly a well-known battery with multiple cells in an efficient way without unexpected results and only the expected result of faster and more efficient welding of electrodes of multiple batteries cells at one time to a busbar to create, potentially, a battery pack.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Chinese Patent Publication CN106271083A; in applicant’s IDS, English disclosure attached) in view of Angerer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0153148) and Ikeda (U.S. Patent 7,802,456) and Guo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0144582) and further in view of Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0315977).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda and Guo teaches electrode lead welding method comprising:
using the electrode lead bending and welding apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), when the battery cell is provided in plural (in combination with Guo, for instance 56A-D) to perform the operations of:
preparing the battery cells and disposing the battery cells such that electrode leads of the battery cells extend through (Guo, fig. 7a-7c) [a slit]
disposing the bending portion of the electrode lead bending and welding apparatus at a first surface of each of the electrode leads (fig. 7B);
bending the electrode leads (7C); and
welding the bent electrode leads to the busbar (fig. 5, for instance, welds 64A-64E).
However, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo does not teach wherein the leads of the battery cells extend through “slits of the busbar”. However, Park teaches that the bus bar (Fig. 1, Park, 3) has slits (S) to accommodate the leads (Park, 2), and that the leads get bent to attach to the busbar (figs. 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have slits in the busbar, in order to have the leads attach to the bus bar closer to its battery, in case of a need to change the battery and it may be more easily removed, using a conventional method to attach leads to a busbar with the expected result of good electrical connectivity.
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo and Park teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach an electrode lead welding comprising determining whether a bent state of each of the electrode leads is at a predetermined angle before welding the bent electrode lead to the busbar. However, in accordance with how the electrodes bend towards the busbar (Guo, Fig. 7C), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo and Park, to ensure that the resulting angle is at a predetermined angle, which would be substantially 90 degrees, in order for the electrodes to be properly welded to the busbar (as in fig. 7C).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo and Park teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach an electrode lead welding wherein the disposing of the bending portion, the electrode lead bending and welding apparatus is moved downwards (Guo, Fig. 6A-6B, for putting the bending portion in the right place), the sensing portion of the electrode lead bending and welding apparatus extends through each of the slits of the busbar so as to be parallel with a direction in which the electrode leads protrude (the bending portions of Angerer, would be attached to each of the leads as taught in Guo, and would extend through the slits as taught in Park), and the lower surface of the bending portion of the electrode lead bending and welding apparatus (lower portion of 208, which is also part of the apparatus) is disposed so as to be adjacent to the busbar (and the bending portion, when it bends the lead, the bottom would be adjacent the busbar as taught in Park) .
Regarding claim 14, Lin in view of Angerer and Ikeda, Guo and Park teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches an electrode lead welding method, wherein the bending of the electrode leads is performed as a process of disposing the bending portion on a first surface of each of the electrode leads (Guo, figs. 6b, 7b) and horizontally moving the bending portion (208, part of bending portion) such that a second surface, which is a surface opposite the first surface, faces the busbar in parallel therewith (leads 58A-D face busbar after bending).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo and Park teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach, in the combination so far, a lead welding method wherein the sensing portion of the electrode lead bending and welding apparatus is rotated 90 degrees in a first direction so as to be located at an outer surface of the busbar in response to a horizontal movement of the bending portion. However, Angerer teaches having the sensing portions either on the inside (Angerer, fig. 6), or on the outside of the bending metal (Angerer, fig 3) to measure the bend. As Angerer only has two locations for the sensing portion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try having the sensing on the outside of the bent metal, in accordance with one of the ways Angerer senses the bending of the metal, using a conventional method in a conventional way achieving the expected result of sensing the bent metal (see MPEP 2143(E)).
Regarding claim 19, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo and Park teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, but does not further teach an electrode lead welding method wherein the determining whether the bent state of each of the electrode leads is at the predetermined angle further includes, when the bent state of each of the electrode leads is determined to be at a different angle than the predetermined angle, bending the electrode leads again. However, in ensuring the lead is properly bent, the device may continually be measuring and thus applying more bending if required (Angerer, ¶0009, “The angle measurement can be taken during a bending operation at specific instants or continuously, in other words for as long as bending forces are still acting on the workpiece or alternatively when the workpiece is not being subjected to load, as a result of which a bending angle actually achieved can be determined taking account of elastic rebound.”). Thus, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo and Park with the further teachings of Angerer, to check the angle and further apply bending, or to be continuously checking and further applying bending (which can also read on the claim) in order to achieve the proper bent angle, and until the predetermined angle is reached it would need to be further bent, and thus would be obvious in light of the further teachings of Angerer, using a conventional method to achieve expected results.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Chinese Patent Publication CN106271083A; in applicant’s IDS, English disclosure attached) in view of Angerer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0153148) and Ikeda (U.S. Patent 7,802,456) and Guo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0144582) and further in view of Hong (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0147734).
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, and Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach an electrode lead welding method wherein a concave portion is formed in the base portion of one unit member among the plurality of unit members, wherein a protruding portion is formed on an adjacent unit member adjacent to the one unit member among the plurality of unit members, the protruding portion having a shape corresponding to the concave portion, and wherein the one unit member and the adjacent unit member are assembled together by the concave portion and the protruding portion. In the combination above, it is not clear how these elements would be attached, and perhaps they would just be manufactured as one piece. However, Hong, in his jig for welding together electrode of batteries, teaches wherein a concave portion is formed in the base portion of one unit member among the plurality of unit members (Hong, fig. 4, groove 240), wherein a protruding portion (Hong, 120) is formed on an adjacent unit member adjacent to the one unit member among the plurality of unit members, the protruding portion having a shape corresponding to the concave portion (the end portion of 120 corresponds to the groove 240, fig. 1), and wherein the one unit member and the adjacent unit member are assembled together by the concave portion and the protruding portion (Hong, fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda and Guo with the teachings of Hong, to have the pieces snap together in a mechanical way, in order to have a method of adjusting for the amount of batteries required, in order to put the jig together in a method that is well-known but it is also separable and the amount of batteries may be adjusted for depending on how many are put together.
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Angerer, Ikeda, Guo, and Hong teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches an electrode lead welding method wherein the concave portion forms a groove, and wherein the one unit member and the adjacent unit member are assembled together by sliding the protruding portion into the groove of the concave portion (Hong protrusion 120 slides into the hooking groove 240, fig. 1, and this reference was combined above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach wherein the sensing portion is attached to the bending portion in a state of being perpendicular to a lower surface of the bending portion before the electrode lead is bent by the bending portion; and the sensing portion is rotated so as to be parallel with the lower surface of the bending portion when the electrode lead is bent. The prior art of Angerer teaches that the sensing portion is attached to the metal and senses its bend, and in combination would be attached to the leads in Guo (58), not attached to the bending portion. Claims 3 and 4 are dependent on claim 2 and thus also have allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach wherein a distance between the sensing portion and the busbar is formed so as to be equal to a thickness of the electrode lead. Guo teaches the busbar much farther than a thickness of a lead (figs. 7A-7C, lead 58, busbar 60).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach wherein the sensing portion is coupled to the bending portion by an elastic member, and wherein the sensing portion returns to a standby state due to elastic force of the elastic member after the welding of the electrode lead is finished. The sensing portion of Angerer is not connected by an does not return to a standby state due to an elastic force (see Angerer figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach wherein the bending portion is formed in a shape of a quadrangular pillar having a hollow formed therein, and wherein a welding rod is inserted through the hollow in order to perform the welding. It would not be obvious to modify Guo to have a quadrangular pillar having a hollow formed therein.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach wherein a welding rod is on a lower surface of the bending portion. In Guo, the welding takes place adjacent the bending portion, and cannot be added onto its lower surface.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach wherein the welding of the bent electrode lead to the busbar is performed, the sensing portion is rotated 90 degrees in a second direction, which is a direction opposite the first direction, while becoming far away from the busbar, whereby the sensing portion returns to a standby state. At least, the combination with Angerer would not allow the sensing portion to return to a standby state.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms 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
Prosecution Insights