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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 17 are new; claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 11 are withdrawn; and claim(s) 16 has/have been canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 10/31/2025 has/have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4,7-9,15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayama et al. (US6225778B1; cited in 10/31/2025 Office action) in view of Lim et al. (KR20200059354A; cited in 09/29/2022 IDS, see attached machine translation), and as evidenced by Excello Circuits (“Glossary Of Terms For Printed Circuit Board (PCB)”; copy in 10/31/2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Hayama discloses a battery pack 20 comprising:
a battery cell B2 comprising a pair of electrode leads including a positive electrode lead 1a and a negative electrode lead 2a (col. 15 ln. 56-62, FIG. 11);
a pack housing 24 (“lower case”) configured to receive the battery cell B2 therein (“battery cell [B2] is arranged in the lower case 24”, col. 15 ln. 56-57, FIG. 11);
and a protection circuit module (PCM) having a protection circuit formed on a printed circuit board (PCB) 6, the protection circuit being configured to control an operation of the battery cell B2 (col. 2 ln. 47-58).
Hayama col. 6 ¶1-3 discloses “a pair of lands are formed on the circuit board, wherein the pair of lands are connected directly with the positive and negative tabs”. Hayama col. 3 ln. 10-13 further notes that these lands (6d, 6e in FIG. 11) are typically formed of copper. Although not expressly specified by Hayama, it is recognized in the art that PCBs typically form lands as parts of a larger patterned conductive layer. Supporting this, Excello Circuits defines a “land” as “A portion of a conductive pattern usually, but not exclusively, used for the connection and/or attachment of components” (Excello Circuits pp. 6). Furthermore, Lim (KR20200059354A), directed to a protection circuit module (“battery protection device”) (Lim [0001]), evidences that this patterned conductive layer is typically formed as a layer of etched copper foil ([0007]).
Thus, it would be understood by a skilled artisan that Hayama’s disclosure of electrode leads directly bonded to lands on a surface of the PCB inherently results in the structure “wherein the pair of electrode leads are directly bonded to a surface copper foil layer of the PCB without connection members being interposed between the pair of electrode leads and the surface copper foil layer” as claimed in claim 1. This interpretation is supported by the disclosure of Excello Circuits and Lim, which evidence that “lands” on a PCB are formed as parts of a larger, patterned copper foil layer on the PCB.
Hayama’s PCB 6 (Hayama col. 14 ln. 29-37) and electrode leads 1a, 2a (col. 22 ln. 52-55) comprise at least some degree of thickness, and thus extend and/or protrude to some degree in this thickness direction (see Annotated Hayama FIG. 10 Showing Extension, below). As the pack housing 24 is open in this thickness direction (FIG. 7), Hayama’s PCB thus “extends outward from the pack housing in a direction in which the pair of electrode leads protrude” as claimed in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
3140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hayama FIG. 10 Showing Extension
Furthermore, as PCB 6 is accommodated, i.e., received, in a space 8 which requires both the lower case 24 and the battery B2 to be formed (col. 15 ln. 56-59, FIGs. 10, 11), Hayama’s PCB is only partially received in the pack housing as claimed in claim 1 because the structure of the lower case 24 alone does not fully receive the PCB.
Hayama’s pair of electrode leads 1a, 2a, which extend at least some degree in a thickness direction of the electrode leads (col. 22 ln. 52-55) where the pack housing 24 is open in the thickness direction (FIG. 7), therefore extend outward from the pack housing 24 as claimed in claim 1 (see dashed line in Annotated Hayama FIG. 10 Showing Extension).
In the embodiment of FIGs. 7-11 as referenced above (see “second embodiment”, col. 15), each electrode lead 1a, 2a is connected on only one side to a respective to land 6d, 6e (col. 15 ln. 59-63, FIG. 11), thus, “the pair of electrode leads are exposed on the PCB” as claimed in claim 1.
Furthermore, the exposed and extending portions of the pair of electrode leads 1a, 2a are entirely disposed on the surface of the PCB 6 located outside of the pack housing 24 (see Annotated Hayama FIG. 10 below, dashed line showing the bounds of pack housing 24).
PNG
media_image2.png
772
2077
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hayama FIG. 10
thus, Hayama discloses “the exposed and extending portions of the pair of electrode leads are entirely disposed on a surface of the PCB located outside the pack housing” as claimed in claim 1.
Hayama further provides PCB leads 6c formed on the opposite side of the PCB to the lands 6d, 6e (FIG. 10) which serve as outputs though the bottom of the pack housing (col. 14 ln. 8-15); thus, it would be understood by a skilled artisan that PCB 6 would necessarily require at least some method of connection through PCB 6 between the outgoing leads 6c and lands 6d, 6e. However, Hayama fails to provide further structural details of the PCB wherein “the surface copper foil layer of the PCB extends to an edge of the PCB and an end of the surface copper foil layer and the edge of the PCB are aligned in a sectional view” claimed in claim 1.
Lim is a protection circuit module (“battery protection device”) (Lim [0001]) comprising a PCB formed through stacking laminates covered with copper foil layers as conductive layers (110, 120, 130, 140, 150) ([0051-0053], FIG. 3). Lim addresses a similar need of connecting components and patterns on the upper and lower surfaces of the PCB ([0032]), and teaches forming via structures 190 as through-holes penetrating the conductive layers which are then plated to provide a path for interconnection between electrode patterns formed between each conductive layer ([0071-0072], FIG. 3). The PCB 100, including surface copper foil layers 150, 160 (“conductive layers”), extends only to an edge around the via structures 190 as the hole throughout the structure opened to provide plating connecting each layer. Furthermore, the edges of the PCB and surface copper foil layer are aligned at the edges of the hole (FIG. 3, [0071]).
Thus, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hayama’s PCB to include Lim’s via structures to provide a path for interconnection between Hayama’s outgoing leads and lands, which are placed on opposite sides of the PCB. By modifying in view of Lim, which requires forming holes through the PCB in order to form the via structures, a skilled artisan would thus form Hayama’s surface copper foil layer and PCB extending only to the edge around the via structures, reading on the limitation “the surface copper foil layer of the PCB extends to an edge of the PCB and an end of the surface copper foil layer and the edge of the PCB are aligned in a sectional view” claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the battery cell B2 is a pouch-shaped battery cell (“film type flat battery cell”, Hayama col. 29 ln. 29-30, FIG. 7).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, modified Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 2. Hayama’s PCB 6 comprises lands 6d, 6e on one side and PCB leads 6c formed on the opposite side (Hayama FIG. 10), which is understood to form “a double-sided PCB” as claimed in claim 3. Hayama’s lands 6d, 6e (see discussion of claim 1) are further recognized as part of the surface copper foil layer recited in claim 3. However, Hayama fails to expressly specify further details of the PCB as including a prepreg layer located between two copper foil layers (i.e., between another copper foil layer in addition to Hayama’s surface copper foil layer) as claimed in claim 3, wherein another surface copper foil layer is the other of the two copper foil layers and wherein the another surface copper foil layer extends to the edge of the PCB and an end of the another surface copper foil layer and the edge of the PCB are aligned in the sectional view as claimed in claim 17.
Lim teaches the use of two surface copper foil layers 150, 160 (“conductive layers”) in order to suitably mount components on both an upper surface of the PCB and provide pads for connections on an opposite lower surface (Lim [0032, 0037], FIG. 3).
Thus, as Hayama intends to mount leads 6c on a surface of the PCB opposite to the surface copper foil layer containing lands 6d, 6e (Hayama FIG. 10), it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the structure of another copper foil layer on this surface of the PCB for purposes of mounting the leads as taught by Lim (MPEP 2144.07). This another copper foil layer is provided on the PCB surface and is thus recognized as the “another surface copper foil layer [as] the other of the two copper foil layers” claimed in claim 17.
It is also understood in the art that some form of insulating substrate is necessary as a base layer to form the surface copper foil layers as wiring in the structure of a PCB (Lim [0006-0007]), such that Hayama’s PCB inherently comprises at least some form of insulating substrate; however, Hayama fails to specify the use of a prepreg layer as claimed in claim 3 for this insulating substrate.
Lim teaches that prepreg is desirable as an insulating substrate due to its improved insulating abilities over conventional materials such as epoxy, allowing a reduction in size ([0078-0080]). Such considerations are pertinent to Hayama, which indicates a desirability to reduce the amount of internal space in the battery pack used for the PCB and its connection to the battery cell (Hayama col. 6 ln 1-9).
Thus, in seeking reduce the size of Hayama’s PCB and thus improve the compactness of Hayama’s battery pack, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a prepreg layer for the insulating substrate as taught by Lim (MPEP 2144.07). In doing so, a skilled artisan would form the “structure in which a prepreg layer is located between two copper foil layers” claimed in claim 3, wherein the “one of the two copper foil layers is the surface copper foil layer” recited in claim 3 is the existing surface copper foil layer as discussed in claim 1.
Additionally, as the structure of Lim’s via structures 190 extend through the entire PCB including both surface copper foil layers 150, 160 (Lim [0071-0072], FIG. 3), providing the via structures through the another surface copper foil layer to connect this layer would result in a PCB structure where "the another surface copper foil layer extends to the edge of the PCB and an end of the another surface copper foil layer and the edge of the PCB are aligned in the sectional view” as claimed in claim 17.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hayama further discloses the battery pack according to claim 2. While Hayama desires to reduce the internal space in the battery pack used for the PCB and its connection to the battery cell (Hayama col. 6 ln 1-9), Hayama fails to expressly specify the PCB as being a multilayered PCB in order to achieve this structure, as claimed in claim 4 reciting “the PCB is a multilayered PCB having a structure in which the pair of copper foil layers and prepreg layers are alternately stacked.”
Lim notes the desirability of forming additional wiring layers to expand the wiring layer, particularly in multilayer printed circuit boards having multiple layers of copper foil bonded to insulating layers (i.e., pairs of copper foil layers and insulating layers) in order to further reduce the size of the PCB ([0006-0008]). Lim further teaches that prepreg is desirable as an insulating material due to its heat resistance ([0049]) and its improved insulating abilities over conventional materials such as epoxy, allowing a reduction in size in a multilayered PCB having a structure in which pairs of copper foil layers and prepreg layers are alternately stacked ([0078-0080], [0051-0053], FIG. 5).
Thus, in seeking to improve the compactness of modified Hayama’s battery pack, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select the structure of a multilayered PCB having a structure in which the pair of copper foil layers and prepreg layers are alternately stacked as taught by Lim for use as Hayama’s PCB. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Lim teaches a suitability of this PCB structure connected to terminals of a battery cell (Lim [0032]) (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claims 7-9, Hayama discloses that positive electrode leads including aluminum and negative electrode leads including nickel are commonly used in the art alongside the copper lands (Hayama col. 3 ln. 10-13). Hayama does not specify any requirement to utilize a different material to form the electrode leads 6d, 6e in the embodiment of FIGs. 7-11 as referenced above (see “second embodiment”, col. 15), such that a skilled artisan would use a positive electrode lead including aluminum as claimed in claims 7 and 9, and/or a negative electrode lead including nickel as claimed in claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the positive electrode lead (“tab”) and the lands of the surface copper foil layer of the PCB are connected through ultrasonic welding and thus form a weld (Hayama col. 15, ln. 63-64).
Claims 7-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayama (US6225778B1), Lim (KR20200059354A), and Excello Circuits as applied to claim 1, further in view of Matsuda et al. (JP-2004171896-A; cited with machine translation, 05/19/2025 Office action).
Regarding claims 7-9, modified Hayama discloses that positive electrode leads including aluminum and negative electrode leads including nickel are commonly used in the art alongside the copper lands (Hayama col. 3 ln. 10-13), but fails to explicitly specify the material of the positive and negative electrodes in the embodiment of FIGs. 7-11 as referenced above (see “second embodiment”, col. 15).
Hayama specifies the use of ultrasonic welding to connect the positive and negative electrode leads to the battery cell in the second embodiment (Hayama col. 15, ln. 63-64).
It is known in the art as taught by Matsuda (JP2004171896A) that a positive electrode lead comprising aluminum (Matsuda [0031]) and a negative electrode lead comprising nickel ([0034]) may be suitably joined to a PCB connection land by ultrasonic welding ([0055]).
As such, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a positive electrode lead including aluminum as claimed in claims 7 and 9, and/or a negative electrode lead including nickel as claimed in claim 8 (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the positive electrode lead (“tab”) and the lands of the surface copper foil layer of the PCB are connected through ultrasonic welding and thus form a weld (Hayama col. 15, ln. 63-64).
Claims 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayama (US6225778B1), Lim (KR20200059354A) and Excello Circuits as applied to claim 1 above and/or herein, and further in view of Brand et al. “Welding techniques for battery cells and resulting electrical contact resistances” (cited with copy in office action filed 05/19/2025).
The term “directly bonded […] by a laser welding”, as recited in claim 12, is a product-by-process claim limitation, i.e., a bond between two members formed through laser welding. It is noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I). The claim term is interpreted as meaning a welded bond formed between two members. Support for this interpretation comes from paragraph [0009] of the instant specification.
Claim 13, dependent on claim 12, recites the term “continuous wave type laser welding” as a particular type of laser welding for the term “directly bonded […] by a laser welding” of claim 12, which is likewise a product-by-process claim limitation, limited only to the structure implied by the recited steps (see MPEP 2113 I). The claim term is interpreted as meaning a welded bond formed between two members ([0009]), furthermore without the use of a separate connection member such a metal pad between the two members ([0060]), wherein cracks and/or an intermetallic compound are not formed at the bonded portion even when the metals are dissimilar metals with a low absorptivity such as aluminum and copper ([0010]).
Claim 14, dependent on claim 13 and further dependent on claim 12, recites the term “continuous wave type laser welding using a fiber laser” as a particular type of laser welding for the term “directly bonded […] by a laser welding” of claim 12 which is likewise a product-by-process claim limitation, limited only to the structure implied by the recited steps (see MPEP 2113 I). While the instant specification recites that fiber lasers in particular have high outputs and reduced power consumptions compared to that of conventional lasers ([0061]), the specification does not appear to recite a structure implied by the step of using a fiber laser specifically. As such, this limitation is interpreted as having the same meaning as the term “continuous wave type laser welding” as recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrode leads 1a, 2a are directly bonded to lands 6d, 6e (6d, 6e in FIG. 11) on the surface of the PCB 6, these being understood as a component of the surface copper layer. Hayama specifies the use of ultrasonic welding to connect the positive and negative electrode leads to the battery cell in the second embodiment (col. 15 ln. 55-62), which is understood to impart the structure implied by laser welding (see claim interpretation section above).
Assuming, arguendo, that persuasive evidence is provided demonstrating Hayama’s ultrasonic welding does not necessarily or inherently form the structure implied by laser welding as recited in the instant specification, being formation of a welded bond between two members (Instant specification [0009]), Brand teaches the use of various methods for joining dissimilar metals for the connection of battery components (Brand pp. 2 section 1 “Introduction”), such as the use of laser welding (Brand pp. 10 section 5 “Laser beam welding”). Advantageously, laser welding found to produce welds with the lowest electrical contact resistances and highest joint strengths of the welding methods tested, and was found to capable of producing nearly any desired battery cell connection (Brand pp.13 section 7 “Conclusion”). Furthermore, Brand recognizes ultrasonic welding and laser beam welding as interchangeable equivalents for the same purpose of battery assembly (Brand pp. 7 col. 1 paragraph 1).
As such, in seeking improve the electrical conductivity and joint strength of Hayama’s welded terminals, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to weld the terminals and PCB using laser welding as taught by Brand, with a reasonable expectation of success as Brand recognizes ultrasonic welding and laser beam welding as interchangeable equivalents for the purpose of welding battery components (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hayama discloses the battery pack of claim 12 wherein the leads are ultrasonically welded to the surface copper foil layer (Hayama col. 15, ln. 63-64), thereby imparting the structure implied by laser welding (see claim interpretation section and rejection of claim 12 under Hayama, above). Brand teaches that ultrasonic welding is known to cause cracks in the welded materials (Brand, section 7 “Conclusion”), and would therefore be incapable of forming the structure implied by continuous wave type laser welding where cracks are not formed at the bonded portion (see claim interpretation section above).
Brand teaches the use of various methods for joining dissimilar metals for the connection of battery components (Brand pp. 2 section 1 “Introduction”), such as the use of a continuous-wave fiber laser (Brand pp. 10 section 5 “Laser beam welding”). Advantageously, continuous wave type laser welding using a fiber laser was found to produce welds with the lowest electrical contact resistances and highest joint strengths of the welding methods tested, and was found to capable of producing nearly any desired battery cell connection (Brand pp.13 section 7 “Conclusion”).
As such, in seeking to reduce the cracking of Hayama’s welded terminals, and improve the electrical conductivity and joint strength of the welded connection, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to weld the terminals and PCB using a continuous wave type fiber laser as taught by Brand, with a reasonable expectation of success as Brand recognizes ultrasonic welding and laser beam welding as interchangeable equivalents for the purpose of welding battery components (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Assuming, arguendo, that persuasive evidence is provided demonstrating laser welding does not necessarily or inherently form the structure implied through use of continuous wave-type welding using a fiber laser, Brand further recognizes the use of a continuous wave-type welding using a fiber laser as suitable for the purpose of welding battery components (Brand pp. 10 section 5 “Laser beam welding”); it would therefore be obvious to perform the laser welding with a continuous wave type laser welding using a fiber laser (MPEP 2144.07) as claimed in claims 13 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons discussed below:
Examiner notes that statements regarding interpretation of claims 12-14, i.e., pages 2-3 in the office action filed 10/31/2025, clarify interpretation of these claims under MPEP 2113 I as product-by-process claims, and do not provide an interpretation of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Moreover, while Applicant asserts that the specification provides ample structures for the noted welded bond between two members and the continuous wave type laser welding (Remarks pp. 5), Applicant must provide specific evidence establishing nonobvious differences between the claimed product (produced by continuous wave-type laser welding) and the prior art product (produced by ultrasonic welding) to overcome the rejection of claims 12-14 under Hayama’s (US6225778B1) ultrasonic welded structure as interpreted under MPEP 2113 I; see MPEP 2113 II.
Applicant contests the interpretation that Hayama’s (US6225778B1) lands 6d, 6e (FIG. 11) are part of a surface copper foil layer, and asserts that Hayama’s lands as a surface copper foil layer are limited solely to the area or size to that immediately adjacent to the electrode leads (Remarks p. 9).
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive as the lands simply comprise the part of a larger copper foil layer used for attachment to other components (Excello Circuits pp. 6, defining a “land” as “a portion of a conductive pattern usually, but not exclusively, used for the connection and/or attachment of components”), and the copper foil layer is not limited to the area immediately adjacent to the electrode leads. Furthermore, newly cited prior art Lim et al. (KR20200059354A) teaches the structure of lands extending to an edge of the PCB (see discussion of claim 1).
The remaining references (Excello Circuits, Jeong (KR-20180019340-A), Brand et al. “Welding techniques for battery cells and resulting electrical contact resistances”) are not relied upon to teach the cited features of claim 1 or are no longer applied in the current rejection of record (Remarks p. 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kozu et al. (US20030146734A1) provides a comparable battery pack wherein positive and negative electrode leads 11, 12 are ultrasonically welded to lands 21 formed by a copper conductive pattern on a PCB (“circuit board”) 80 (Kozu [0089] and claims 16-18, FIGs. 16A, 17). The PCB 80 is partially received in a pack housing of batteries 201 ([0106-0107], FIG. 26A), and the pair of electrode leads extend outward from the pack housing and are exposed on the PCB (FIG. 27B). However, Kozu requires the use of a nickel plating on lands 21 to prevent oxidation ([0092]), such that the leads bonded to the lands are not directly bonded to the surface copper foil layer forming the lands itself.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights