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 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 1 recites, at least 50% lead. However, Claim 5 seems to lie outside this range, e.g. by inclusion of "UNS L50000 to L50099", e.g., as the specified range includes alloys having almost 60% tin, thus, no longer being alloys of lead (but instead, being an alloy of tin).
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) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 15-17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kometani et al (EP 3168903) as cited by applicant.
Kometani discloses, regarding claim 1, a method of joining a first metal and a second metal, wherein the first metal comprises Pb in an amount of at least 50 wt.% by weight of the first metal (electrode columns 14 and 16, which are the first and second metals being welded, are made from a lead alloy which would be more than 50% lead. Lead alloys are almost all at least 75% Pb, See Paragraph [0018]), the method comprising: fusing the first metal and the second metal using non-consumable electrode arc welding. (The metal parts are fused together via TIG welding, which would involve an arc. See Paragraph [0019] The welding groove is flooded with a welding material and would be melted by the torch. As the groove is flooded, the welding electrode must be non-consumable.)
Regarding claim 2, a terminal for a batter would use a lead alloy which contains more than 75%Pb. (As evidenced by Klebanov et al US 6,300,007) Regarding claim 3, the second metal, of electrode terminal 14 or 16, is also a lead alloy and would contain at least 50% lead. Regarding claim 4, as the amount includes 0.0% for each element, the claim is considered optional and disclosed by Kometani. Regarding claims 6 and 8, Figs 4A-4C show a single or double sided butt joint with the fusing at the prepared joint (groove 26) Regarding claim 9, Figs 4A-4C show the welding occurring without backing. Regarding claims 15-17, the welding is autogenous performed in a single pass and a tungsten electrode with argon gas is used. Regarding claim 19, the Figures show a component formed by the method in claim 1. Regarding claim 21, Kometani discloses a method of joining a first metal and a second metal, wherein the first metal comprises Pb in an amount of at least 50 wt.% by weight of the first metal (electrode columns 14 and 16, which are the first and second metals being welded, are made from a lead alloy which would be more than 50% lead. Lead alloys are almost all at least 75% Pb, See Paragraph [0018]), the method comprising: fusing the first metal and the second metal using non-consumable electrode arc welding. (The metal parts are fused together via TIG welding, which would involve an arc. See Paragraph [0019] The welding groove is flooded with a welding material and would be melted by the torch. As the groove is flooded, the welding electrode must be non-consumable. With the TIG welding performed by a welding unit.) The robot limitation is optional and not given patentable weight.
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(s) 2, 5, 7, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kometani et al (EP 3168903) in view of Klebanov et al (US 6,300,007).
The teachings of Kometani have been discussed above. Kometani would contain at least 75% Pb, however this is not specifically disclosed. Kometani discloses a Pb Alloy, but fails to specifically disclose UNS L50000 to L50099, UNS L50100 to L50199, UNS L54000 to L55099, UNS L52500 to L53799 or L50700 to L50899, which are the standards for Pb alloys. Klebanov discloses using lead in a terminal at greater than 75%. (See Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Kometani in view of Klebanov to provide Pb at greater than 75% or UNS L50000 to L50099, UNS L50100 to L50199, UNS L54000 to L55099, UNS L52500 to L53799 or L50700 to L50899 since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Kometani fails to disclose the butt joint thickness ranging from 1-20 mm. However, it would have been obvious to use a butt joint thickness from 1-20 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to use a flat welding position as this would depend on the design of the device. Figs 4A-4C of Kometani do show the posts in a flat position. However, one might argue they are not given it does not match the orientation of “Flat Position” in Fig 7 of the present application. Kometani is considered a flat position as the groove goes along the length of the abutting pieces and the end of each piece is at the same height.
Regarding claim 11, Kometani fails to specifically disclose a welding rate of 1-100 mm/s. However, Komentani discloses performing welding at an appropriate speed. (See Paragraph [0029]) It would have been obvious to use a welding rate of 1-100 mm/s since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 12, the welding takes place in an argon atmosphere. (See Paragraph [0029]) It would have been obvious to use the claimed flow ate and Ar+1 to 5% H2 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kometani et al (EP 3168903) in view of Byrum, III (US 2019/0299320).
The teachings of Kometani have been discussed above. Kometani fails to disclose the non-consumable electrode arc welding comprises using a thoriated tungsten electrode, comprising from 1.7 to 2.2 wt.% thorium, having a diameter in a range from 1.0 mm to 3.2 mm, a diameter at tip in a range from 0.125 mm to 1.5 mm, a taper length of from 1.5 to 3 times the diameter, a constant included angle in a range from 120 to 90, and/or a pointed or a truncated tip.
Kometani discloses using TIG welding. Byrum discloses using a thoridated tungsten electrode with 2% thorium, a tip anlge of 120 degrees, (See Paragraph [0041]), diameter of 3mm (Paragraph [0025]) and a tip diameter and length consistent with the application. (See Paragraph [0028]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to adapt Kometani in view of Byrum to provide a thoriated tungsten electrode, comprising from 1.7 to 2.2 wt.% thorium, having a diameter in a range from 1.0 mm to 3.2 mm, a diameter at tip in a range from 0.125 mm to 1.5 mm, a taper length of from 1.5 to 3 times the diameter, a constant included angle in a range from 120 to 90, and/or a pointed or a truncated tip since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to use current control welding as the only options are current control or voltage control and using the low frequency range is considered obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kometani et al (EP 3168903) in view of Uba (US 4,295,029).
The teachings of Kometani have been discussed above. Kometani fails to disclose plasma arc welding. However, Uba discloses welding lead terminals of a battery using either TIG or plasma welding. (See Column 3) Therefore it would have been obvious to use plasma welding as Uba discloses these to be obvious variants for the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/30/2025