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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 29 January 2026. As directed by Applicant, claims 1, 3-14, and 16 are amended. Claims 2, and 15 are cancelled and claims 17-22 are added. Thus claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 are pending. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
Claims 17 and 18 are 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.
New claims 17 and 18 depend on now cancelled claim 15. These claims are indefinite as their scope is unclear and there are many clarity issues (lack of antecedent bases for “the electrode sheets”, for instance) For purposes of Examination, claims 17 and 18 will depend on claim 1. Clarification is required. Appropriate correction 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.
[Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that limitation]
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Behr (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0189994) in view of Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136840).
Regarding claim 1, Behr discloses a method for welding metallic foils, comprising:
forming a parallel joint comprising an end face (Behr, fig. 5, end face 56) and a plurality of metallic foils by arranging adjacent metallic foils of the plurality of metallic foils to contact each other (Behr, fig. 5, Abstract “joint”),
overlapping an electrical conductor (52) with the parallel joint;
welding the plurality of metallic foils together by directing a laser beam (51) onto the end face (where foils 53,54,58 end, at joint 56) to form a seam joining the adjacent metallic foils; and
welding the electrical conductor to at least one metallic foil of the adjacent metallic foils by directing the laser beam onto a region of the end face adjacent to the electrical conductor (Behr, fig. 5,, laser 51, to scan across the face).
Behr does not teach wherein the plurality of metallic foils are a plurality of current conductors of electrode sheets. The method of Behr just teaches welding foils, but Zhao teaches that the foils are the conductors, for instance “a stack of electrically conductive tabs for electrodes for an electrochemical cell (at least Zhao, ¶0001, figs. 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Behr with the teachings of Zhao, to create in a conventional way, via welding foils, a cell conductor, achieving only conventional welding results.
Regarding claim 4, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a method wherein a source of the laser beam is suitable for welding copper and aluminum. However, Behr does teach that the foils may be made of copper or aluminum (Behr, ¶¶0057,0061). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr, to have the laser be suitable to weld copper and aluminum, as those are common foil metals, and to be able to weld both those metals to have the source ready for use with whatever type of foils the next workpiece has, to reduce downtime.
Regarding claim 5, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach, in this embodiment, a method wherein the laser beam has a wavelength of 450 - 1100 nm. However, Zhao teaches wherein the laser beam has a wavelength in a range of 450 - 1100 nm (Zhao, ¶0027, “Useful lasers for welding include those having wavelengths in the infrared spectrum (CO.sub.2, ND:YAG) to those having wavelengths in the visible spectrum (green laser)” these are wavelengths of between roughly 500-1000 nm, within the claimed range). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Behr with the teachings of Zhao, and to use a laser within conventional wavelengths, in order to affect laser processing in a conventional manner, melting the foils and creating a joint, without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method comprising moving the laser beam along the end face during the welding process (Behr, fig. 5, laser moved along end face as indicated.)
Regarding claim 9, Behr discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method comprising moving the laser beam at least in portions in a straight line over the end face (Behr, fig. 5, straight movement line of laser)
Regarding claim 14, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method wherein process heat is dissipated during welding (heat used for welding and then “dissipated” at least, down the foils and into the air; this claim, broadly understood, is invariably true).
Regarding claim 19, Behr discloses a method for welding metallic foils, comprising:
providing an electrical conductor and a parallel joint (Behr, Fig. 5, elements 52+ 56), wherein the parallel joint comprises an end face and a plurality of metallic foils (Behr, 53, 54, 58), (Behr, claim 1, “bringing the workpieces to be joined into contact with one another in such a ways that a joining point is formed”), wherein the end face comprises an edge region 56) , and wherein the electrical conductor is in contact with the edge region (52 is in contact with edge region);
welding the plurality of metallic foils together by directing a laser beam onto the end face to form a seam joining the adjacent metallic foils (Behr, directing laser 51); and
welding the electrical conductor to the edge region by directing the laser beam onto the edge region in contact with the electrical conductor (Behr, directing laser 51, this joins the foils and the electrical conductor outer part).
Behr does not disclose wherein the plurality of metallic foils are a plurality of current conductors of electrode sheets.
The method of Behr just teaches welding foils, but Zhao teaches that the foils are the conductors, for instance “a stack of electrically conductive tabs for electrodes for an electrochemical cell (at least Zhao, ¶0001, figs. 1-2), and thus these sheets would be “plurality of metallic foils are a plurality of current conductors of electrode sheets. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Behr with the teachings of Zhao, to create in a conventional way, via welding foils, a cell conductor, achieving only conventional welding results.
Claims 3, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0189994) in view of Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136840) in view of Chiba (Japanese Patent Publication JP2013122973A; in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Behr in view of Zhao all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the laser beam is directed onto the end at an angle α 0 ≤ α ≤ 70 with respect to a line positioned normal of the end face. However, Chiba teaches wherein the laser beam is directed onto the end face of the parallel joint at an angle α in the range of 0 < α <70 with respect to the normal of the end face (Chiba, ¶¶37,38, figs. 8-10, the radiation is “inclined” at an angle from 0-30 degrees, which is within the claimed range and thus taught). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Behr with the teachings of Chiba, in order to limit the scatter of the melt in order not to detrimentally affect the weld and the rest of the device with scatter from the created weld (Chiba, ¶0037).
Regarding claim 10, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method, comprising moving the laser beam at least in portions in an oscillating manner over the end face. However, Chiba teaches, in his foil melting method, where the beam is moved at least in portions in an oscillating manner over the end face (Chiba, ¶0028, pulse oscillation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Modify Behr in view of Zhao with the teachings of Chiba, to have the laser move at least in portions in an oscillating manner in order to affect a strong weld on the face that oscillates over the foils to weld them together in a conventional way, the foil material is melted in stages and the melted material falls on each other and moves to a desired hole, achieving the expected result of foils welded together in a good weld (Chiba, ¶0028).
Regarding claim 20, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as above, but does not further teach a method,, wherein the laser beam is directed onto the end face at an angle of 0-70° with respect to normal of the end face. However, Chiba teaches, in his foil melting method, where the beam is moved at least in portions in an oscillating manner over the end face (Chiba, ¶0028, pulse oscillation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Modify Behr in view of Zhao with the teachings of Chiba, to have the laser move at least in portions in an oscillating manner in order to affect a strong weld on the face that oscillates over the foils to weld them together in a conventional way, the foil material is melted in stages and the melted material falls on each other and moves to a desired hole, achieving the expected result of foils welded together in a good weld (Chiba, ¶0028)
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12, 16, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0189994) in view of Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136840) and further in view of Umeyama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0271709).
Regarding claim 6, Behr discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein a source of the laser beam comprises an average power of 300 - 5000 W. However, Umeyama teaches using an average power as claimed (Umeyama, ¶0117, output power 2000W or 3000W). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Behr with the teachings of Umeyama, to use the claimed amount of average power in order to weld, in a conventional way with a conventional amount of power, in order to affect a conventional welding joint, with only expected results of welding a joint.
Regarding claim 7, Behr in view of Zhao and Umeyama teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the source of the laser beam is operated in a mode selected from a continuous wave mode, a pulsed mode, a modulated mode, or combinations thereof. However, Zhao further teaches, in its method of welding foils, wherein the laser beam source is operated in continuous wave mode or in pulsed mode or in modulated mode (Zhao, ¶0027), Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao and Umeyama, with a further teaching of Zhao, to have a laser configured as claimed, in order to affect laser welding of foils in a conventional way achieving the not unexpected result of having welded foils
Regarding claim 12, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the parallel joint is clamped with a clamping force during welding. However, Umeyama teaches wherein the metallic foils are clamped during welding (¶0076, clamp arms 43). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao with the teachings of Umeyama, to clamp the foils to be welded, in order to effect a more secure and stable weld of the foils, keeping them together and welded to the terminal, all in done in a conventional way with the expected result a secure weld (Umeyama, ¶¶96-97).
Regarding claim 16, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the parallel joint is clamped together with the electrical conductor. However, Umeyama teaches wherein the joint made of metallic foils is clamped during welding together with the electrical conductor (¶0076, clamp arms of conductive terminal 43). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao with Umeyama, to clamp the foils to be welded, in order to effect a more secure and stable weld of the foils, keeping them together and welded to the terminal, all in done in a conventional way with the expected result a secure weld (Umeyama, ¶¶96-97).
Regarding claim 21, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 19, but they do not further teach a method wherein the parallel joint is clamped with a clamping force during welding. However, Umeyama teaches wherein the metallic foils are clamped during welding (¶0076, clamp arms 43). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao with the teachings of Umeyama, to clamp the foils to be welded, in order to effect a more secure and stable weld of the foils, keeping them together and welded to the terminal, all in done in a conventional way with the expected result a secure weld (Umeyama, ¶¶96-97).
Regarding claim 22, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as above, but does not further teach a method, wherein the parallel joint is clamped together with the electrical conductor. However, Umeyama teaches wherein the joint made of metallic foils is clamped during welding together with the electrical conductor (¶0076, clamp arms of conductive terminal 43). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao with Umeyama, to clamp the foils to be welded, in order to effect a more secure and stable weld of the foils, keeping them together and welded to the terminal, all in done in a conventional way with the expected result a secure weld (Umeyama, ¶¶96-97).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0189994) in view of Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136840) and further in view of Haschke (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0314392).
Regarding claim 11, Behr in view of Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a method wherein the seam is selected from a weld seam, a stitch seam, and combinations thereof is produced by the laser beam. Behr only has the laser performing a joint weld on the foils, but if the laser was moved in the perpendicular direction, as in Haschke, then it would be obvious to create a stitch seam between the sheets/foils (Haschke, Abstract, 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 Behr in view of Zhao with the teachings of Haschke, to effect a seam stitch weld, in order to affect a conventional weld along edges and keep them together along a length of an edge in a conventional way, using a conventional weld, getting only the expected result of firm weld between the sheets/foils (see MPEP 2143A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0189994) in view of Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136840), Umeyama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0271709) and further in view of Simonin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0169961).
Regarding claim 13, Behr in view of Zhao and Umeyama teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the clamping force is adjusted as a function of a thickness of the parallel joint or of a number of foils. However, Zhou further teaches that there may be different amounts of films and/or thicknesses and that a clamping force is applied to reduce the gap between the films (Zhao, ¶20-22). As well, conventional in the art is adjusting the compression force, such as in Simonin, depending on the types of materials, or amount of films, as taught in Zhao, in order to clamp the films together and close the gaps depending on the amount, material and configuration of the films (Simonin, ¶26, “clamping force applied may be adjusted”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao and Umeyama, with the conventional teachings of Zhao and Simonin, to adjust the clamping force on the foils, in order to create a good weld with no gaps in a conventional way, according to the needs of the operator, taking into account the material and number of foils.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Behr (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0189994) in view of Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136840) and further in view of Tao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0094351).
Regarding claim 17, Behr in view of Zhao teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach a method wherein the electrode sheets are anode sheets. However, Tao teaches that the electrodes of the batteries may serves a anodes or cathodes for the respective batteries (Tao, ¶0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao with the teachings of Tao to have the electrode sheets be either cathodes or anodes of the batteries, in order to combine the battery parts and the batteries in a conventional way achieving the expected result of being able to use either the combined cathodes or anodes of the batteries, as required by the application.
Regarding claim 18, Behr in view of Zhao teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach a method wherein the electrode sheets are cathode sheets. However, Tao teaches that the electrodes of the batteries may serves a anodes or cathodes for the respective batteries (Tao, ¶0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Behr in view of Zhao with the teachings of Tao to have the electrode sheets be either cathodes or anodes of the batteries, in order to combine the battery parts and the batteries in a conventional way achieving the expected result of being able to use either the combined cathodes or anodes of the batteries, as required by the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant incorporated the substance of rejected dependent claims 2 and 15 into rejected independent claim 1. Applicant acknowledges that these dependent claims were rejected in the previous office action (Remarks, pp. 5 and 7). The claims are still rejected over the prior art (Both Volkswagen and Zhao were used, in the previous office action, to teach the foils being conductors and electrode sheets and thus claims 2’s and 15’s incorporation into claim 1 is obvious over just Behr in view of Zhao, as noted above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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 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