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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 – 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/2026. Claims 1 – 13 have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2023 and 12/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2 – 12 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.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the lower can has a cylindrical shape of which a lower side is closed by the inner bottom surface and a top side is open, and wherein the seating portion has a diameter greater than a diameter of the lower can so that the seating portion is seated above the lower can when the insertion portion is inserted into the center hole of the electrode assembly mounted to the lower can.” As described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102, below, the lower can is not a positively-recited element, and thus, is not part of the claimed welding apparatus. The language of claim 2 attempts to claim the diameter of the seating portion in relation to the diameter of the lower can. However, since the diameter of the lower can is unknown and can vary, it is unclear what diameter of a seating portion falls within the scope of the claim. Please see MPEP § 2173.05(b)-II regarding reference to an object that is variable. Claims 3 – 12 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (KR 2017-0050440).
Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses a welding apparatus for a secondary battery (“a laser welding device welding and coupling a cathode tab of an electrode assembly to a lower end of a battery case during a manufacturing process of a cylindrical shape battery cell” [Abstract of attached translation]), wherein when an electrode assembly (Fig. 2, “electrode assembly 210” [page 3]) having a center hole (see annotated Fig. 2; electrode assembly 210 comprises electrodes and a separator layered and then wound into a ‘jelly-roll’; the center hole is along “shaft A” shown in Fig. 2; “The electrode assembly includes a jelly-roll type in which a separator is interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode coated with an active material” [page 2]) is seated on a lower can (Fig. 2, lower can / “battery case 220” [page 3]), an electrode tab (Fig. 2, “negative electrode tab 211” [page 3]) of the electrode assembly is welded to an inner bottom surface of the lower can by the welding apparatus (Fig. 2, “focusing lens 130 emits a laser beam to the welding portion 230 which is the contact portion between the negative electrode tab 211 and the inner surface of the lower end of the battery case 220” [page 3]), the welding apparatus comprising:
a jig (Fig. 2, jig / “contact member 140,” which is described as part of the laser welding apparatus: “laser welding apparatus 100 includes a laser oscillator 110, a collimator 120, a focusing lens 130, and a contact member 140” [page 3]) which comprises an insertion portion (see annotated Fig. 2) that has a pipe shape and a diameter enabling entry into the center hole of the electrode assembly (see annotated Fig. 2, showing wherein insertion portion of jig / contact member 140 has been inserted into the center hole of electrode assembly 210; additionally, the diameter of the insertion portion that is inserted into the center hole is W4, as shown in Fig. 2) and a seating portion (see annotated Fig. 2) that has an enlarged diameter of a disk shape on an end of the insertion portion (Fig. 2, seating portion is the upper portion of contact member 140 as shown in Fig. 2; the diameter of the seating portion is W3; “The outer diameter W3 of the upper end of the contact member 140 is 2.7 mm, the outer diameter W4 of the lowermost end is 2.0 mm” [page 3]); and
a laser irradiation apparatus (“laser welding apparatus 100 includes a laser oscillator 110, a collimator 120, a focusing lens 130” [page 3]) configured to emit a laser beam into a hole of the insertion portion (see Fig. 2, showing collimated then focused beam entering hole / “opening 141” [page 3] and traveling through the insertion portion of jig / contact member 140),
wherein, when the electrode assembly is seated on the lower can such that the electrode tab is placed within the center hole (shown in Fig. 2), the laser irradiation apparatus is configured to perform welding as the laser beam is emitted to a contact point between the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab after passing through the hole of the insertion portion of the jig (Fig. 2, contact point is “welding portion 230”; “focusing lens 130 emits a laser beam to the welding portion 230 which is the contact portion between the negative electrode tab 211 and the inner surface of the lower end of the battery case 220” [page 3]).
Additionally, it is noted that the positively-recited elements of the welding apparatus of claim 1 are the jig and the laser irradiation apparatus. The following elements in claim 1 are not positively-recited elements: the electrode assembly (comprising the center hole and electrode tab), the lower can, and the contact point between the lower can and the electrode tab. Rather, these elements are articles (and a point) worked upon by the apparatus. While Ko discloses these elements as described above, it is noted that “[a] claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, ‘[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.’ In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).” MPEP § 2115.
PNG
media_image1.png
786
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Ko, annotated
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites, “wherein the lower can has a cylindrical shape of which a lower side is closed by the inner bottom surface and a top side is open, and wherein the seating portion has a diameter greater than a diameter of the lower can so that the seating portion is seated above the lower can when the insertion portion is inserted into the center hole of the electrode assembly mounted to the lower can.”
As described above, the lower can is not a positively-recited element of the claimed welding apparatus. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” MPEP § 2115. Additionally, depending on the diameter of the lower can, the seating portion of Ko is capable of having a diameter greater than a diameter of the lower can so that the seating portion is seated above the lower can when the insertion portion is inserted into the center hole of the electrode assembly mounted to the lower can. Please see also the 112(b) rejection of claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites, “wherein a height and a diameter of the lower can are determined so that a ratio of the height to the diameter is in a range from 0.35 to 0.6.”
As described in the rejection of claim 1, the lower can is not a positively-recited element of the claimed welding apparatus. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” MPEP § 2115. The welding apparatus of Ko is capable of working on a lower can with a ratio of height to diameter in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Ko discloses wherein a hole along a longitudinal direction of the insertion portion has a shape in which a diameter is greatest on a side, in which the seating portion is formed, and decreases gradually in a direction away therefrom (“contact member 140 has a tapered structure in which the sectional area on the horizontal plane decreases from the upper end to the lower end” [page 3]).
Regarding claim 9, Ko discloses wherein the insertion portion has a length configured to enable the electrode tab to come into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can when the insertion portion enters the center hole (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 2017-0050440).
Regarding claim 3, Ko discloses wherein the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can (see Fig. 2).
Ko does not expressly disclose wherein, when the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 to 1.5 mm.
However, regarding the inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion, Ko discloses wherein “the inner diameter W5 is 1.6 mm” [page 3]; Fig. 2 shows wherein W5 is an inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, an inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 to 1.5 mm, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less. Depending on the height of the battery being manufactured, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a height of the insertion portion that allows the electrode assembly to surround the insertion portion as desired. Accordingly, the claimed height of the insertion portion is merely a design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Ko discloses wherein the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can (see Fig. 2).
Ko does not expressly disclose wherein, when the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion is in a range from 0.53 to 1.5 mm.
However, regarding the inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion, Ko discloses wherein “the inner diameter W5 is 1.6 mm” [page 3]; Fig. 2 shows wherein W5 is an inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, an inner diameter of the hole of the insertion portion is in a range from 0.53 to 1.5 mm, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less. Depending on the height of the battery being manufactured, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a height of the insertion portion that allows the electrode assembly to surround the insertion portion as desired. Accordingly, the claimed height of the insertion portion is merely a design choice.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 2017-0050440) in view of Kumazawa et al. (JP 2004-158318).
Regarding claim 10, Ko does not expressly disclose wherein the jig includes a metal material.
Kumazawa is directed to a “cylindrical battery and its manufacturing method” [Title]. Kumazawa discloses wherein a jig includes a metal material (Fig. 6 shows jig 6; “A rod-shaped jig (hereinafter, referred to as a “contact rod”) 6” [0025]; “contact rod 6 is made of a material having a high thermal conductivity of 50 W / m / K or more, such as a metal represented by copper, iron, tungsten, aluminum, gold, and nickel” [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the jig includes a metal material, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 2017-0050440) in view of Kumazawa et al. (JP 2004-158318), further in view of Oh et al. (KR 2017-0059176).
Regarding claim 11, Ko / Kumazawa does not expressly disclose wherein a bottom surface of the seating portion facing the electrode assembly and a surface of the insertion portion are coated with an insulating layer for insulating electricity.
Oh is directed to a “sealing apparatus for sealing a pouch case including a pouch main body accommodating an electrode assembly of a battery cell” [Abstract]. Oh discloses wherein a jig is coated with an insulating layer for insulating electricity (“heat insulating member 310 provided in the first sealing jig 100 of the pouch case sealing apparatus 10 may be a laminate of a plurality of heat insulating layers 315 having a low thermal conductivity” [page 4 of attached translation]; heat insulating member 310 is described as being part of heat insulating member 300 [page 4]; heat insulating member 300 may be made of a material having a low thermal conductivity even at a high temperature. For example, the heat insulating member 300 may be made of ceramic fiber, glass fiber, or the like” [page 4]; these materials are capable of providing electrical insulation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a bottom surface of the seating portion facing the electrode assembly and a surface of the insertion portion are coated with an insulating layer for insulating electricity. Inclusion of an insulating layer advantageously “blocks heat transfer” [page 4].
Regarding claim 12, Ko / Kumazawa does not expressly disclose wherein the insulating layer includes a material having lower thermal conductivity than the jig.
Oh discloses wherein the insulating layer includes a material having lower thermal conductivity than the jig (“heat insulating member 310 provided in the first sealing jig 100 of the pouch case sealing apparatus 10 may be a laminate of a plurality of heat insulating layers 315 having a low thermal conductivity” [page 4 of attached translation]; heat insulating member 310 is described as being part of heat insulating member 300 [page 4]; heat insulating member 300 may be made of a material having a low thermal conductivity even at a high temperature. For example, the heat insulating member 300 may be made of ceramic fiber, glass fiber, or the like” [page 4]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the insulating layer includes a material having lower thermal conductivity than the jig. Inclusion of an insulating layer with a relatively low thermal conductivity advantageously “blocks heat transfer” [page 4].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 2017-0050440) in view of Uemura et al. (JPH04230953).
Regarding claim 13, Ko does not expressly disclose wherein the laser beam is emitted in a defocusing state in which a focus is formed before the laser beam arrives at the contact point between the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab.
Uemura is directed to the manufacture of a battery [Title]. Uemura discloses wherein a laser beam is emitted in a defocusing state in which a focus is formed before the laser beam arrives at a contact point between the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab (see Fig. 2, showing laser beam 12, which a focus formed before the laser beam arrives at the contact point between the inner bottom surface of the lower can 7 and the electrode tab 6; “the cathode current collector 6 and the exterior case 7 can be welded together by the heat of the laser beam 12” [page 4 of attached translation]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the laser beam is emitted in a defocusing state in which a focus is formed before the laser beam arrives at the contact point between the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab. This is a known configuration for the laser beam, applied to a known device for welding a battery, to achieve predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the seating portion has a shape which has a greater height at an edge portion and becomes gradually lower in a direction toward a hole of the center, as required in claim 7. Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the seating portion has a recessed groove on a side surface so that an upper end of the lower can is configured to be inserted therein when the insertion portion enters the center hole, as required in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761