DETAILED ACTION
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 Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 7 November 2022.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7 November 2022 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At paragraph 0017: “”upper face 11”,” is suggested to be: “upper face 11,”
The disclosure may have more informalities not identified above. Please review the specification for any further appropriate correction(s).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 2: “the battery cells” is suggested to be: the multiple battery cells. Appropriate correction is required.
(B) At line 9: “the other one” is suggested to be: the another one. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 2: “laser” is suggested to be: a laser. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 2: “laser” is suggested to be: a laser. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 2: “the battery cells” is suggested to be: the multiple battery cells. Appropriate correction is required.
(B) At line 4: “comprising” is suggested to be: comprising:. Appropriate correction is required.
(C) At line 5: “laser” is suggested to be: a laser. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017168340 to Kumazawa et al. (hereinafter “KUMAZAWA”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
KUMAZAWA discloses:
A manufacturing method of a battery pack in which multiple battery cells are stacked (not shown in the figures, see “technical field” section of English translation: a battery system in which a plurality of battery cells are connected in series or parallel), and electrodes of adjacent battery cells of the battery cells are connected by a bus bar (1, Fig. 8A), the bus bar having two holes (5) that are smaller than the electrodes (3, 4), and the bus bar being disposed such that the holes overlap the electrodes respectively (Fig. 8A), the manufacturing method comprising:
welding the bus bar and one of the electrodes (see “Fourth embodiment” section of the English translation: The welding plate portion 2a where the negative electrode terminal 3 and the aluminum bus bar 1 overlap is irradiated with laser light to form the first first welding portion 6a and the first welding portion 13a by through welding);
welding the bus bar and another one of the electrodes in an intermediate region between the two holes of the bus bar (see “Fourth embodiment” section of the English translation: Similarly, a laser beam is applied to the weld plate portion 2b where the positive electrode terminal 4 and the aluminum bus bar 1 are overlapped to form the first second weld portion 6b); and
welding the bus bar and the other one of the electrodes in an end region adjacent to the intermediate region of the bus bar (see “Fourth embodiment” section of the English translation: Similarly, a laser beam is applied to the weld plate portion 2b…to form…the second weld portion 13b by through welding).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAZAWA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7718274 to Ertl et al. (hereinafter “ERTL”).
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
KUMAZAWA teaches:
The bus bar (1, Fig. 8A) is irradiated by a laser (see the “Technical Field” section of the English translation: laser welded part) at a position away from an edge of one of the holes (see Fig. 8A at welds 6a, 13a, 6b, and/or 13b).
However, the difference between KUMAZAWA and the claimed invention is that KUMAZAWA does not explicitly teach irradiation by the laser is stopped when the bus bar melts up to the edge.
ERTL teaches:
Irradiation by a laser (5, Fig. 2a) is stopped when the bus bar melts up to the edge (Fig. 2b: see the part 1 at bevel surface 7 is now fillet weld 11 at the edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of KUMAZAWA by forming the bus bar with a bevel surface around the hole and stopping irradiation by the laser when the bus bar melts up to the edge, as taught by ERTL, in order to form a fillet weld between the bus bar and the electrode and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing damage to the electrode by suppling the welding energy exclusively to the bus bar surface at a predetermined distance away from the edge (col. 2, ll. 18-24, 33-40, 44-51).
(B) Regarding Claim 3:
KUMAZAWA teaches:
The bus bar (1, Fig. 8A), in the intermediate region (6b, Fig. 8A), is irradiated by a laser (see the “Technical Field” section of the English translation: laser welded part) at a position away from an edge of one of the holes (see Fig. 8A at welds 6a, 13a, 6b, and/or 13b).
However, the difference between KUMAZAWA and the claimed invention is that KUMAZAWA does not explicitly teach irradiation by the laser is stopped when the bus bar melts up to the edge.
ERTL teaches:
Irradiation by a laser (5, Fig. 2a) is stopped when the bus bar melts up to the edge (Fig. 2b: see the part 1 at bevel surface 7 is now fillet weld 11 at the edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of KUMAZAWA by forming the bus bar with a bevel surface around the hole and stopping irradiation by the laser when the bus bar melts up to the edge, as taught by ERTL, in order to form a fillet weld between the bus bar and the electrode and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing damage to the electrode by suppling the welding energy exclusively to the bus bar surface at a predetermined distance away from the edge (col. 2, ll. 18-24, 33-40, 44-51).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAZAWA in view of ERTL.
(A) Regarding Claim 4:
KUMAZAWA teaches:
A manufacturing method of a battery pack in which multiple battery cells are stacked (not shown in the figures, see “technical field” section of English translation: a battery system in which a plurality of battery cells are connected in series or parallel), and electrodes of adjacent battery cells of the battery cells are connected by a bus bar (1, Fig. 8A), the bus bar having two holes (5) that are smaller than the electrodes (3, 4), and the bus bar being disposed such that the holes overlap the electrodes respectively (Fig. 8A), the manufacturing method comprising: irradiating by a laser (see the “Technical Field” section of the English translation: laser welded part) at a position away from an edge of one of the holes (see Fig. 8A at welds 6a, 13a, 6b, and/or 13b).
However, the difference between KUMAZAWA and the claimed invention is that KUMAZAWA does not explicitly teach irradiation by the laser is stopped when the bus bar melts up to the edge.
ERTL teaches:
Irradiation by a laser (5, Fig. 2a) is stopped when the bus bar melts up to the edge (Fig. 2b: see the part 1 at bevel surface 7 is now fillet weld 11 at the edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of KUMAZAWA by forming the bus bar with a bevel surface around the hole and stopping irradiation by the laser when the bus bar melts up to the edge, as taught by ERTL, in order to form a fillet weld between the bus bar and the electrode and thereby achieve the predictable result of reducing damage to the electrode by suppling the welding energy exclusively to the bus bar surface at a predetermined distance away from the edge (col. 2, ll. 18-24, 33-40, 44-51).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150243947 to Seto et al. teaches a bus bar with joining surfaces by laser welding pattern in a thinned area around the electrode terminal. US 20160114429 to Shioga et al., US 20190288264 to Fujita, and CN 111146397 to Guo et al. teach joining parts by laser welding away from an edge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM EST.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights