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 .
ULTRASONIC ASSISTED TRIMMING OF BATTERY FOIL
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/050,238 Art Unit 1727 November 24, 2025
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on August 06, 2025 has been received. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 15 and 17 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cai on claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-13 and 15-19 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cai on claims 6, 9-10 and 20 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cai and Hull on claim 14 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claims.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2024/0030564 A1).
As to Claims 1, 15 and 17, Cai discloses an apparatus 10 and method of using, comprising: a horn 34 having a welding interface 340 and configured to oscillate the welding interface at a first resonance frequency to weld a foil; and a trim tool 32 coupled to said horn, the horn configured to oscillate the trimmer at a second frequency to trim the foil (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0004, 0031-0032]). Cai does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second frequencies are different from each other. However, Cai recognizes the resonance frequencies as result-effective variables which are optimized to perform the functions of welding and trimming as needed. The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.5 II, B. In addition, there are a known and predictable finite number of options with the frequency relationship between the welding and trimming (the same or different) and the courts have held that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” See KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and try different frequencies to perform the welding and trimming functions because Cai teaches that battery cells can be manufacture din a more efficient manner in terms of manufacturing space and time (paragraph [0025]).
As to Claims 2, 16 and 18, Cai discloses wherein the horn is configured to oscillate the welding interface and trimmer simultaneously (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011 and 0043]).
As to Claims 3-5 and 19, Cai discloses wherein the welding and trimming can optionally be done at the same time (paragraphs [0011 and 0043]), which reads on the claimed first and second burst. In addition, it is the position of the Office that the horn is configured to perform the claimed functions of the product claim given that the structure of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claims 6 and 20, Cai teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to weld and trim multiple foils (Title, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0033]). Cai does not specifically disclose the claimed number of foils. However, the courts have held that the mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the apparatus and method of Cai to read on the claims because Cai teaches that welding and trimming may be advantageously integrated into a single workstation (paragraph [0045]).
As to Claim 7, Cai discloses wherein the horn is configured to oscillate the welding interface at a first frequency along a first axis and oscillate the trimmer at a second frequency along a second axis aligned with the first axis (Fig. 1).
As to Claim 8, Cai discloses wherein the welding interface 340 is positioned at a bottom portion of the horn and the welding interface to engage a top surface of the foil to weld the foil (Fig. 1).
As to Claim 9, Cai does not specifically disclose the claimed configuration. However, the courts have held that shifting the position of the welding interface would not have modified the operation of the device, and therefore the particular placement of the welding interface is held to be an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the welding interface of Cai to read on the claim because Cai teaches that welding and trimming may be advantageously integrated into a single workstation (paragraph [0045]).
As to Claim 10, Cai does not specifically disclose the claimed configuration. However, the courts have held that shifting the position of the trimmer would not have modified the operation of the device, and therefore the particular placement of the trimmer is held to be an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the trimmer of Cai to read on the claim because Cai teaches that welding and trimming may be advantageously integrated into a single workstation (paragraph [0045]).
As to Claim 11, Cai discloses an anvil 36 (reads on balancer) as part of the integrated work station (reads on coupled to the horn) and having a mass (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, paragraph [0031]). It is the position of the Office that the anvil is configured to perform the claimed functions given that the structure of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 12, Cai discloses a guide clamp 30 coupled with an anvil 36 (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0031]). It is the position of the Office that the guide clamp and anvil are configured to perform the claimed functions given that the structure of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 13, Cai discloses an anvil 36 having a welding surface and positioned opposite the welding interface; and the welding surface to receive the foil to position the foil between the anvil and the welding interface to weld the foil (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2024/0030564 A1) in view of Hull (US 2014/0190638 A1).
As to Claim 14, Cai does not specifically disclose wherein the anvil comprises a sloped surface.
However, Hull teaches of an ultrasonic welding device comprising a horn and anvil 70 wherein the anvil has sloped surfaces (Abstract and Fig. 1A). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anvil of Cai to comprise a sloped surface because Hull teaches that improved weld integrity while permitting narrower welds with greater durability is provided (Abstract and claim 38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 06, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Cai does not teach the claimed different first and second frequencies (claims 1, 15 and 17).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) The teachings of Cai render the new limitations as obvious as stated above in the rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights