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 Interpretation
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda et al. JP-2004171896-A (cited with machine translation in office action filed 05/19/2025, human translation relied on for paragraphs [0050-0057] and [0068-0070]), as evidenced by NPL Excello Circuits “Glossary Of Terms For Printed Circuit Board (PCB)”
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda discloses a battery pack 1 ([0027], FIG. 1) comprising a battery cell 3 (“polymer battery”, [0027]) comprising a pair of electrode leads 19, 16, including a positive electrode lead 16 and a negative electrode lead 19 ([0031], FIG 4); a pack housing 2a (“lower half”) configured to receive the battery cell 3 within (FIG. 2 [0080-0081]), and a protection circuit module (PCM) 22 having a protection circuit ([0056]) formed on a printed circuit board (PCB) 4 ([0054]), the protection circuit being configured to control an operation of the battery cell ([0052]).
Matsuda discloses that the surface of the PCB 4 comprises a pattern wiring layer formed of a copper foil ([0053]) including the connection lands 23a, 23b ([0069]) to which the electrode leads 16, 19 are directly bonded to by welding ([0055], FIG. 4).
While Matsuda does not explicitly describe the connection lands as being part of the surface copper foil layer of the PCB 4, Matsuda discloses the copper foil layer (“pattern wiring”) includes the connection lands 23a, 23b when it is formed in an area that becomes the PCB 4 ([0069]), which suggests that the lands are part of the copper foil layer and not a separate connection member. 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); as such, the pair of electrode leads 16, 19 are directly bonded to the connection lands 23a, 23b a surface copper foil layer of the PCB 4 without connection members being interposed between the pair of electrode leads and the surface copper foil layer.
Matsuda further discloses the battery pack wherein the PCB 4 is folded onto itself ([0080], FIG. 13-14), and consequently extends in a folding direction from a bottom of the pack housing 2b towards an open face, i.e, an outside of the pack housing 2b (see Annotated Matsuda FIGs. 13-14 below). As a plain meaning of ‘outward’ is “moving, directed, or turned toward the outside” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary), Matsuda’s PCB 4 which is extended in a folding direction is broadly and reasonably interpreted as extending outward from the pack housing 2b.
Matsuda discloses the pack housing 2b (“lower half”) is joined with an upper half 2a to fully house, i.e., receive the PCB 4 in outer casing 2 ([0080-0081], FIGs 2, 14); the PCB 4 is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as partially received in the pack housing 2b which forms a part of the outer casing 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
1211
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Matsuda FIGs. 13-14
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the battery cell 3 is a pouch-shaped battery cell (FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda discloses the battery pack according to claim 2, wherein the PCB 4 is a double-sided PCB having a structure in which a prepreg layer is located between two copper foil layers ([0053]), and wherein one of the two copper foil layers, comprising the connection lands 23a, 23b where the positive and negative electrode leads 16, 19 are bonded is the surface copper foil layer (FIG. 4, [0055]).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Matsuda discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode lead includes aluminum ([0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuda discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode lead includes nickel or copper ([0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuda discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrode leads 16, 19 are directly bonded to the surface copper foil layer of the PCB 4 by resistance or ultrasonic welding ([0055]), which is understood to impart the structure implied by laser welding (see claim interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuda discloses the battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the positive electrode lead 16 and the connection lands 23a, 23b of the surface copper foil layer of the PCB 4 are joined by ultrasonic welding, thus forming a weld ([0055]).
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayama et al. US-6225778-B1.
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 (col. 15 ln. 56-62, 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 discloses the pair of electrode leads 1a, 2a are directly bonded to lands 6d, 6e on the surface of the PCB 6 without connection members such as drawing terminals 6f (FIG. 6c) being interposed between the pair of electrode leads 1a, 1b and lands 6d, 6e (col. 15 ln 63-col. 16 ln. 5). The lands 6d, 6e on the surface of the PCB 6 are formed of copper (col. 3 ln. 10-13) and are depicted as a flat layer (FIG. 11), and are thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as the surface copper foil layer 6d, 6e of the PCB.
Hayama further discloses the PCB 6 comprises a molding 6b which molds circuit parts with a resin (col. 2 ln. 12-13), and consequently extends in direction from a bottom of the pack housing 24 towards an open face, i.e, an outside of the pack housing 24 (FIGs. 9-11). As a plain meaning of ‘outward’ is “moving, directed, or turned toward the outside” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary), Hayama’s PCB 6 comprising molding 6b is broadly and reasonably interpreted as extending outward from the pack housing 24.
Hayama discloses the pack housing 24 (“lower case”) is joined with an upper case 22 to fully contain, i.e., receive the PCB 4 in container 26 (col. 15 ln. 9-15, FIG. 7), the PCB 4 is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as partially received in the pack housing 24 which forms a part of the container 26.
Regarding claim 2, 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”, col. 29 ln. 29-30, FIG. 7).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode lead includes aluminum (col. 3, ln. 10-13).
Regarding claim 8, Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode lead includes nickel (col. 3, ln. 10-13).
Regarding claim 15, Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the positive electrode lead (“tab”) and the surface copper foil layer of the PCB (“lands…formed of Cu”) are connected through ultrasonic welding and thus form a weld (col. 3, ln. 5-13).
Regarding claim 16, Hayama discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrode leads 1a, 2a extends outward from the battery case 4A4 (“sealing”) (FIG. 11), and the pair of electrode leads 1a, 2a are exposed on the PCB 6, and wherein exposed and extending portions of the pair of electrode leads 1a, 2a are entirely disposed on a surface of the PCB 6 (FIG. 11).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Excello Circuits as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jeong KR-20180019340-A (cited with machine translation provided in previous office action filed 08/19/2025)
Regarding claim 4, Matsuda discloses the battery pack according to claim 2, comprising the battery pack according to claim 2, wherein the PCB is a multilayered PCB having a structure in which a pair of copper foil layers and a prepreg layer is stacked, but does not explicitly disclose a PCB comprising multiple pairs of copper foils and prepreg layers and as claimed.
Jeong teaches a protection circuit module comprising a first 11 and second 16 circuit pattern formed on sides of the prepreg layers 21 ([0007], FIG. 3), further comprising a third pattern 26 formed between two prepreg layers 21 ([0028], FIG. 3), thereby forming a structure in which pairs of conductive metal layers 16, 26, 11 and prepreg layers 21 are alternately stacked.
Advantageously, this PCM comprising multiple layers of conductive metal and/or prepreg layers is thin and compact and easily configured, and can be assembled through an automated process ([0015]).
Therefore, in seeking to increase the compactness of the protection circuit module disclosed by Matsuda, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a multilayered structure of alternately stacked pairs of copper foil layers and prepreg layers as taught by Jeong, with a reasonable expectation that such a modification would still be easily configured and suitable for assembly through an automated process.
Claims 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and/or herein, and further in view of NPL Brand et al. “Welding techniques for battery cells and resulting electrical contact resistances” (cited with copy in office action filed 05/19/2025).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuda discloses the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrode leads 16, 19 are directly bonded to the surface copper foil layer of the PCB 4 by resistance or ultrasonic welding ([0055]), which is understood to impart the structure implied by laser welding (see claim interpretation section above).
Assuming, arguendo, that persuasive evidence is provided demonstrating Matsuda’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 Matsuda’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, Matsuda discloses the battery pack of claim 12 wherein the leads are ultrasonically welded to the surface copper foil layer ([0055]), thereby imparting the structure implied by laser welding (see claim interpretation section and rejection of claim 12 under Matsuda, 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 Matsuda’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).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that statements regarding interpretation of claims 12-14, i.e., pages 2-3 in the office action filed 05/19/2025, 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).
Applicant asserts that Matsuda does not provide support for considering the connection lands 23a, 23b as equivalent to a surface copper foil layer of the PCB 4 (Remarks pp. 8 paragraphs 1-2).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive; Matsuda discloses that the PCB’s pattern wiring forming the copper foil layer includes the connection lands, and additionally forms the connection lands while forming the pattern wiring, evidencing that the connection lands are an inherent part of the PCB. Furthermore, Excello Circuits evidences that a ‘land’ is understood in the art to refer to a portion of the pattern wiring. (See rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Matsuda evidenced by Excello Circuits, i.e., pp. 3-4 of this office action).
Applicant asserts that Matsuda discloses a gap between PCB 4 and battery 3 so that the PCB is not partially received in the pack housing.
This argument has been fully considered but is moot because the amendments to claim 1 necessitate new grounds of rejection with a different interpretation of Matsuda; see pp. 3-4 of this office action.
Applicant asserts that the features of newly added claims 15 and 16 recite further limitations which are not disclosed or made obvious by the applied prior art references.
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive for the reasons discussed regarding rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Matsuda (see pp. 5) and rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Hayashi (see pp. 7)
Conclusion
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-7:30.
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 10/29/2025
Prosecution Insights