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 Arguments filed 25 August 2026 in applicant’s After Final submission. Prosecution has reopened. As directed by Applicant, no claims are amended, added or cancelled. Thus claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 are pending. This is a Non- Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 25 August 2026 in applicant’s After Final submission were persuasive. The arguments were persuasive, that element 52 is not an electrical conductor and is a removable film (Remarks, p. 5 last paragraph – p. 6, first paragraph). Thus, new art is applied, and the current arguments 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nagel (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2022179760A1; citations from equivalent U.S. Patent Publication 2024/ 0173800).
Regarding claim 1, Nagel discloses a method for welding metallic foils, comprising:
forming a parallel joint comprising an end face (fig. 1, end face edges 120E where metal foils 120 come to an end together ) and a plurality of metallic foils (120) by arranging adjacent metallic foils of the plurality of metallic foils to contact each other (fig 1), wherein the plurality of metallic foils are a plurality of current conductors of electrode sheets (Nagel, ¶0006, 110 coming from the battery, ¶0019, ” Metal foils 120 form either a set of anodes or a set of cathodes of the battery cell.);
overlapping an electrical conductor (130) with the parallel joint (Nagel, fig. 1, ¶0019, “Metal tab 130 is configured to form an electrical contact for metal foils 120.);
welding the plurality of metallic foils together by directing a laser beam ( lasers 180,190) onto the end face to form a seam joining the adjacent metallic foils (Nagel, fig. 1, ¶0022, stack of metal foils 120 with edge face120E where laser (180,190) is applied); 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 (120E) adjacent to the electrical conductor (electrical conductor 130, ¶0022, fig. 1, laser 190).
Regarding claim 4, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method wherein a source of the laser beam is suitable for welding copper and aluminum (Nagel, ¶¶0019, 20; “Metal foils 120 are for example made of aluminum, and metal tab 130 may be made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy. Alternatively, metal tab 130 may be made of another metal or metal alloy, for example copper, a copper alloy, or a steel alloy.” The laser beam is suitable for welding those materials because it is welding those materials)).
Regarding claim 6, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method wherein a source of the laser beam comprises an average power of 300 - 5000 W (Nagel, ¶0046).
Regarding claim 7, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further discloses 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 (Nagel, ¶0046 continuous).
Regarding claim 8, Nagel discloses 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 (Nagel, at least Abstract “A first laser welding step interconnects the foils with an initial laser-weld joint by serially tracing a plurality of lateral paths along the foil edges with a laser beam.”, ¶¶22-23).
Regarding claim 9, Nagel 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 (Nagel, figs. 3A, 3C; weld lines 320 following lateral paths 310, ¶0036).
Regarding claim 10, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further discloses a method comprising moving the laser beam at least in portions in an oscillating manner over the end face (Nagel, ¶0029, oscillate).
Regarding claim 11, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method wherein the seam is selected from a weld seam, a stitch seam, and combinations thereof is produced by the laser beam (Nagel, ¶0004, weld seam).
Regarding claim 12, Nagel discloses teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method wherein the parallel joint is clamped with a clamping force during welding (Nagel, ¶0022, “Step 220 is a first laser-welding step that interconnects the metal foils with an initial laser-weld joint. In one example of step 220, a laser beam 180 welds edges 120E of metal foils 120 to each other while the stack of metal foils 120 is secured between metal tab 130 and removable clamp 140.; the clamp applied the clamping force).
Regarding claim 14, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses method wherein process heat is dissipated during welding (heat used for welding and is then “dissipated”, at least, down the foils and into the air. this claim, broadly understood, is inherently true).
Regarding claim 16, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method wherein the parallel joint is clamped together with the electrical conductor (Nagel, fig. 1, ¶0021, “removable clamp”).
Regarding claim 17, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a method wherein the electrode sheets are anode sheets (Nagel, ¶0021, “metal foils form either a set of anodes or a set of cathodes”).
Regarding claim 18, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further discloses a method wherein the electrode sheets are cathode sheets (Nagel, ¶0021, “metal foils form either a set of anodes or a set of cathodes”).
Regarding claim 19, Nagel discloses a method for welding metallic foils, comprising:
providing an electrical conductor (Nagel, fig. 1; 130) and a parallel joint (joint made by fusing 120), wherein the parallel joint comprises an end face (120E) and a plurality of metallic foils (Nagel 120), wherein the plurality of metallic foils are a plurality of current conductors of electrode sheets (Nagel, ¶0006, 110 coming from the battery, ¶0019, ” Metal foils 120 form either a set of anodes or a set of cathodes of the battery cell.), wherein adjacent metallic foils of the plurality of metallic foils are in contact with each other, wherein the end face comprises an edge region (end face, 120E, so the edge region would be the end part leading up to 120E, like the area of 320(1), 320(2), etc. as seen in fig. 3B) , and wherein the electrical conductor is in contact with the edge region (fig. 1, the electrical conductor is in contact with some of 320, fig. 3D);
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 (Nagel, with laser 180, ¶¶22-23); and
welding the electrical conductor to the edge region by directing the laser beam onto the edge region in contact with the electrical conductor (Nagel, with laser 190, ¶0028).
Regarding claim 21, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 19 and further discloses a method wherein the parallel joint is clamped with a clamping force during welding (Nagel, ¶0021, claim 4, “clamping” indicates a clamping force).
Regarding claim 22, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 19, as above, and further discloses a method, wherein the parallel joint is clamped together with the electrical conductor (Nagel, ¶0021, claim 4, “clamping” indicates a clamping force, removable clamp.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nagel (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2022179760A1; citations from equivalent U.S. Patent Publication 2024/ 0173800) in view of Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136840).
Regarding claim 5, Nagel discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a method wherein the laser beam has a wavelength of 450 - 1100 nm. However, Zhao, in his welding process, 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, to weld copper ¶0019). 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.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2022179760A1; citations from equivalent U.S. Patent Publication 2024/ 0173800) in view of Chiba (Japanese Patent Publication JP2013122973A; in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Nagel discloses 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. Now, Nagel apparently does teach some angle (Nagel fig. 1, the angle of 180, 190), but the angle is not explicit. 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 Nagel 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 20, Nagel discloses 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. Now, Nagel apparently does teach some angle (Nagel fig. 1, the angle of 180, 190), but the angle is not explicit. 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 Nagel 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).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2022179760A1; citations from equivalent U.S. Patent Publication 2024/ 0173800) and further in view of Simonin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0169961).
Regarding claim 13, Nagel discloses 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. Nagel does teach clamping, as above. 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 Nagel, 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 Nagel with the conventional teachings of 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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