18/019,324DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 4 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 4 recites the limitation "the curved corners" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the curved corners” will be interpreted as “the first corners”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (KR 2020-0105272A, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. discloses in Figs 1-10, an electrode tab (refs 15) welding apparatus (ref 100) for welding two or more electrode tabs (refs 15) protruding from an electrode assembly (ref 10), the electrode tab welding apparatus (ref 100) comprising: a first tab guide (ref 120) and a second tab guide (ref 110) configured to press (Figs 4, 5) the two or more electrode tabs (refs 15) in a first direction perpendicular to (Fig 5) protruding surfaces (Fig 5) of the two or more electrode tabs (refs 15); and a welding unit (refs 140, 141, 142) configured to weld (Fig 5, P8/¶2) protruding portions (ends of refs 15, Figs 5-6) of the two or more electrode tabs (refs 15) to each other (Fig 5, P8/¶2), wherein an area of contact (see contact area in bold annotated boxed, arrowed Fig 5 below) between the second tab guide (ref 110) and one of the electrode tabs (refs 15) is greater than (see contact area in bold annotated boxed, arrowed Fig 5 below) an area of contact between the first tab guide (ref 120) and one of the electrode tabs (refs 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first tab guide (ref 120) and the second tab guide (ref 110) are disposed between an outermost portion (depicted in Fig 5, shows 120, 110, between ref 10) of a separator (ref 14) disposed between a positive electrode (ref 12) and a negative electrode (ref 11) of the electrode assembly (ref 10) and the welding unit (refs 140, 141, 142).
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses first corners (“1st C” each, below Fig 3) that are facing the electrode assembly (ref 10) of portions of the first tab guide (ref 120) and the second tab guide (ref 110) that face the electrode tabs (refs 15) are curved (Fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses radii of curvature of the first corners (“1st C”, above Fig 3) are approximately 0.3 mm or more (Figs 3, 9).
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a distance (depicted in Figs 1, 4, 5) between the second tab guide (ref 110) and the electrode assembly (ref 10) is equal to or greater than (depicted in Figs 1, 4, 5) a distance between the first tab guide (ref 120) and the electrode assembly (ref 10).
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a space (depicted in Fig 5) between the first tab guide (ref 120) and the second tab guide (ref 110) is approximately 3 mm or less (Fig 5, depicts close contact, at least less than 3mm).
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses each of the first tab guide (ref 120) and the second tab guide (ref 110) has a thickness of approximately 0.5 mm or more (depicted in Figs 5, 9 above).
Regarding claim 9, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrode tabs (refs 15) are welded using the electrode tab welding apparatus (refs 140, 141, 142), an internal angle (Fig 5 above) between an outermost electrode tab (ref 15) of the electrode assembly (ref 10) and a vertical surface (Fig 5 above) of the electrode assembly (ref 10) is approximately 45 degrees or less (see “45 or less” with arrow annotated in Fig 5 above).
Regarding claim 12, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the welding unit (refs 140, 141, 142) is a welding jig (Fig 6, P8/¶2) comprising a horn (ref 141) and an anvil (ref 142).
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses first and second positions (annotated “C1” and “C2”, Fig 5 above) of the first tab guide (ref 120) and the second tab guide (ref 110), respectively, are positioned such that corners (“C1” and “C2”, Fig 5 above) of the horn (ref 141) and the anvil (ref 142) do not contact (Fig 5) the electrode tabs (refs 15).
Regarding claim 18, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first tab guide (ref 120) is opposite (Figs 2-5) the second tab guide (ref 110) relative to the two or more electrode tabs (refs 15).
Regarding claim 19, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses first tab guide (ref 120) and the second tab guide (ref 110) are disposed asymmetrically (Figs 4, 5, tabs bent asymmetrically) about the two or more electrode tabs (refs 15).
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 non-obviousness.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 2020-0105272A, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific radii curvature of second corners (“that are not facing the electrode assembly of the portions of the first tab guide and the second tab guide that face the electrode tabs are approximately 0.2 or more times the radii of curvature of the first corners”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the curvature of the second corners relative to the first corners, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the shape of the tab guide structures affects the welding structure efficiency of the tabs and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the curvature of the first and second tab guide structures.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 2020-0105272A, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young et al. (US 3,873,803).
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a plate configured to support a first end of the electrode assembly; and a pusher configured to push the electrode assembly at a second end of the electrode assembly to fix the electrode assembly, wherein the plate and the pusher do not protrude beyond an outermost side of the electrode assembly.
Young et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a battery lead welding apparatus (Title, Abstract) including a battery cell assembly holding fixture (ref 26) for supporting an electrochemical cell pack (ref 28) during welding (Abstract). The holding fixture (ref 26) includes guides (refs 24) supporting the electrochemical cell pack (ref 28) on multiple sides (Fig 1) and a plate structure (Fig 1, surface of ref 26) on which the electrochemical cell pack (ref 28) is disposed. This structure supports the electrochemical cell pack (ref 28) on multiple sides while welding leads (C2/L53-64), which enhances the overall welding process and battery lead structure (C1/L6-10, C1/L49-57).
Young et al. and Choi et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery welding apparatuses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the welding support structures including support plates and guides disclosed by Young et al. into the welding apparatus of Choi et al. to support the electrode assembly during welding, enhancing the overall welding process and battery lead structure.
Regarding claim 17, modified Choi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first end and the second end are opposite each other (depicted in Figs 4-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jeon (US 2018/0301685) discloses in Figs 1-4, an electrode tab connecting member (ref 100) including first and second plates (refs 140, 120) and a pressing member (ref 160) that presses and welds electrode tabs (refs 210) together.
Ota et al. (US 2006/0088761) discloses in Figs 1-5, a device (refs 261, Figs 45-49) for welding battery electrode tabs together utilizing compression and welding (Figs 45-49).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725