DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application, with claims 1-10 withdrawn. Previous grounds of rejection and objection have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 209786103 U, citations from US 2021/0135321) in view of Wen et al. (US 2020/0028144).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses in Figs 1-10, a method ([0052]-[0066]) for joining battery tab stack (Fig 8) to electrode lead (ref 3) for rechargeable battery ([0037]), comprising: providing ([0053]) a multilayer structure ([0053]-[0054]) comprising a battery tab stack (Fig 8), a welding protective layer and an electrode lead (ref 3), wherein the tab (Fig 8) and the electrode lead (ref 3) are located at opposite sides (Fig 8) of the battery tab stack (Fig 8), respectively; performing a lamination process ([0053]-[0054]), wherein the battery tab stack (Fig 8), and the electrode lead (ref 3) are laminated ([0053]-[0054]); and performing a laser welding process ([0055]), wherein a laser is delivered ([0065]) along a direction ([0065]) from the tab toward the electrode lead (ref 3) to join the battery tab stack (Fig 8) to the electrode lead (ref 3).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a welding protective layer
Wen et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery ([0041]) including an electrode tab (ref 10) formed with a protective layer (ref 14) that is welded ([0044]). This configuration enhances corrosion resistance to the tab structure ([0005], [0023], [0032]-[0035]).
Wen et al. and Chen are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the protective layer disclosed by Wen et al. on the tab structure of Chen to enhance corrosion resistance to the tab structure, enhancing overall battery performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Reasons for indication of allowable subject matter were stated in the 10/22/2025 office action at P5 and are therefore not being repeated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants argue Chen in view of Wen fails to disclose performing a laser welding process, wherein a laser is delivered alone a direction from the welding protective layer toward the electrode lead to join the battery tab stack to the welding protective layer and the electrode lead. Applicants further state Chen discloses multiple electrode tabs are ultrasonically welded to form a first welding region, and an electrode lead having a second welding region is laser-welded to the first welding region in a two-step welding process. However, at a basic level, Chen does disclose performing a laser welding process ([0055]), wherein a laser is delivered ([0065]) along a direction ([0065]) from the tab toward the electrode lead (ref 3) to join the battery tab stack (Fig 8) to the electrode lead (ref 3). It is noted the language of instant claim 11 includes “comprising” regarding recitation of the steps of the method. As such, a two-step welding method is not excluded from the scope of the claim. Further, instant claim 11 does not explicitly disclose the laser welding process is performed in a single step. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicants further argue Wen et al. discloses a tab protective layer utilized for improving resistance to electrolyte corrosion rather than serving as a welding protective layer, and further argues Wen et al. does not mention any welding process. The Office does not deny that Wen’s tab protective layer improves electrolyte corrosion resistance. However, it is noted that Wen’s tab protective layer is formed of nickel metal ([0044]), which matches the protective layer of the instant specification (see P5/[0016] of the instant specification). Thus both Wen’s protective material and the instant specification’s protective material are formed of nickel and as such both act to be “protective” materials. Explicitly, the courts have stated, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the nickel of Wen acts as a protective material similar/same as the instant specification. Further, Wen does disclose welding at [0044] and as such, the nickel serves to protect the lead from welding as well as from electrolyte corrosion. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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