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 Status
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks submitted 11/4/2025.
Claims 1, 3-5, 19 have been amended; support for claim 1 is found in [0007] and original claim 2; support for claim 19 is [0024].
Claims 21 and 22 have been added; support is found in original claims
Claims 2 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-19 and 21-22 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Payne et al. (US 20220367982 A1).
As to claim 1, Payne et al. discloses a method of assembling a traction battery pack [0002,0009], comprising:
performing a primary welding operation on a bus bar of a battery system of the traction battery pack [0069] (welding cells to bus bars),
wherein, during the primary welding operation, a primary weld bead is formed on the bus bar [0069] (808, figure 8a); and
performing a secondary welding operation on the bus bar (after testing/inspecting the weld [0073], repair weld can be done [0071]),
wherein, during the secondary welding operation, a repair weld bead (weld) is formed within a weld repair zone [ adjacent repair welds [0071]) of the bus bars wherein the primary weld bead and the repair weld bead do not overlap and are formed at different locations of the bus bar [0071].
As to claim 3, Payne et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the primary weld bead is formed at a location that is adjacent to but not within the weld repair zone [0071] (since the repair weld is adjacent to the weld, the primary and repair welds are located in different zones).
As to claim 5, Payne et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 1, comprising, prior to performing the secondary welding operation, performing a post electrical test on the primary weld bead. (after testing/inspecting the weld [0073], repair weld can be done [0071]).
As to claim 7, Payne et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 1, comprising, prior to performing the primary welding operation and the secondary welding operation, pressing the bus bar against a terminal of a battery cell of the battery system [0068].
As to claim 10, Payne et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the primary welding operation and the secondary welding operation are laser welding operations [0068].
As to claim 21, Payne et al. discloses a method for assembling a traction battery pack, comprising:
applying a pressing force to press a bus bar against a terminal of a battery cell [0068] (applying a force to ensure an intimate connection is achieved during welding);
while maintain the pressing force, forming a primary weld bead for joining the bus bar to the terminal [0068];
removing the pressing force after completing the primary weld bead to expose a weld repair zone of the bus bar [0070-0071] discloses the weld is tested (thus the pressing force is removed to test the weld); and
forming a repair weld bead at the weld repair zone [0071- adjacent repair welds],
wherein, after forming both the primary weld bead and the repair weld bead, the primary weld bead at least partially surrounds the repair weld bead (since it is adjacent it will partially surround).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et al. (US 20220367982A1) in view of Guo et al. (US 20190027734).
As to claim 4, (Currently Amended) The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the primary weld bead can be any shape [0072] but fails to explicitly include an arced shape or a horseshoe shape. (figure 8b [0072]).
Guo et al. discloses a battery and teaches the terminal connected to a bus bar via a weld (abstract). Guo discloses the shape as a horse shoe shaped (figures 3-6).
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, both welds are used for connecting the bus bar to the terminal of a cell, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect for weld to hold.
Claim(s) 6 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et al. (US 20220367982A1) in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2003/0111512 A1).
As to claim 6, Payne discloses the method as recited in claim 1, but is silent to prior to performing the primary welding operation and the secondary welding operation, cleaning a terminal of a battery cell that the bus bar is to be connected to.
O'Connell et al. discloses a method of welding a terminal (lead) and teaches if one or both of the surfaces to be welded are, in any combination, chemically and/or mechanically treated to clean, degrease or mechanically roughen the surface the welding is enhanced [0037].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to clean the terminal because this would enhance the ease of welding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 are allowed.
Claim 8, 9 and 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Payne (US 2022/0367982 A1) which discloses a method for assembling a battery comprising pressing a bus bar against a terminal, forming a primary weld, testing the primary weld, forming a repair weld if needed adjacent [0071] to the first weld but does not disclose the location of that location is where the pressing tool was previously pressed against when forming the first weld. While Payne teaches it may be adjacent that does not suggest or render obvious that it was where the pressing tool was previously locating for the first weld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 , filed 11/4/2025, with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 8/8/2025 has been withdrawn.
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 MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727