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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended; support for claim 1 is found in original claim 4, the amendment to claim 5 was to change dependency.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 17-23 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. IDS statements of previous office actions have already been considered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (US 2022/0021084 A1) in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2021/0151837 A1) and Tschiggfrei et al. (US 2017/0194610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Qi discloses a battery comprising a cell, wherein the cell comprises a cell body and a tab (Figure 1-6; main body portion 10, tab 20), the tab extends from the cell body (Figure 1-6; [0022]), and the tab comprises a first welding mark and a second welding mark, wherein the second welding mark covers the first welding mark (Figure 1-6; [0022-0023] second welding mark 22 covers at least a part of the first welding mark 21).
Qi further discloses wherein the first and second welding mark may be formed in a circular, oval or irregular shape ([0033]), however, is silent with respect to the second welding mark being formed with a circumferentially closed space to expose the first solder mark.
Shimizu discloses a battery comprising a plurality of current collecting tabs and discloses wherein the outer case has been welded to the tabs through a plurality of tabs and thus is analogous with the instant invention as being with in the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Shimizu discloses wherein a weld group 75 as seen in Figures 6-7 can have welds 76, 77 and 78 in the form of concentric circles aligned with the central axis (Figures 6-7; [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to change the shape of the second welding mark of Qi to incorporate the concentric circle shape as taught by Shimizu such that the second weld forms a circle within the first welding mark and exposes the first welding mark at an inner region of the circular, concentric second welding mark. The resulting modification would render obvious wherein the second welding mark is formed having a circumferentially closed space within the first welding mark region and exposes the first welding mark. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Additionally, Qi is silent with respect to the welding marks being a solder mark.
Tschiggfrei discloses a battery pack and method for assembling a battery pack and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Tschiggfrei discloses wherein a connection structure is connected to battery cells via a connection element and that the connection can be realized by a solder joint or welds ([0069]) and thus discloses wherein solder joints and welds are analogous and obvious variants of each other as both are used to obtain a secure electrically connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the welding marks taught by Qi for solder marks taught by Tschiggfrei as welding and soldering are obvious variants of each other as both can be used to obtain a secure electrical connection between battery connection elements. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Modified Qi discloses wherein the second solder mark is provided in the region of the first solder mark and covers at least a part of the first solder mark (Qi [0022-0023]), however, is silent with respect to the area of the space occupying 5-30% the sum of the area of the second solder mark and area of the space. This is deemed to be size dependent based on the size of the second solder mark and corresponding area. It would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the second solder mark such that the area of the space within the second solder mark is 5-30% of the total area of the second solder mark and area of the space. A skilled artisan can adjust the size of the solder mark/welding mark to correlate to a specific area of the welding surfaces of the battery. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Through the modification, all the claim limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2-3, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Shimizu further discloses wherein the space is a circle and wherein the second solder mark is a circular ring (Figures 6-7; [0095] welding mark can be a circular ring with a space in the central region that exposed the first solder mark and being a circular shape and through the combination the weld can be a complete circular region in view of Qi and Shimizu, see modification of claim 1).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Qi discloses wherein the second solder mark is provided in the region of the first solder mark, however, is silent with respect to the area of the second solder mark being 10-200 mm2, and the melting width of the second solder mark is 1.5-6 mm, however, this is deemed to be size dependent based on the size of the second solder mark and corresponding area. It would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the second solder mark such that the area of the second solder mark being between 10-200 mm2, and the melting width of the second solder mark being 1.5-6 mm. A skilled artisan can adjust the size of the solder mark/welding mark to correlate to a specific area of the welding surfaces of the battery. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Qi further discloses wherein the first welding mark is formed on the tab, however, is silent with respect to the first welding mark being a square, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the shape of the first welding mark explicitly have a square shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Qi further discloses wherein the first welding mark is formed on the tab, however, is silent with respect to the first welding mark having a size of 5 mm x 5 mm to 20 mm x 20 mm, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the size of the first welding mark to be within the range as claimed as a simple change in size. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Qi further discloses wherein the second solder mark is located in the middle of the first solder mark ([0029] second welding mark is located in a middle portion of the first welding mark).
Regarding claim 10, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Qi further discloses wherein the tab comprises a plurality of single piece tabs (Figures 1-6; [0049] plurality of tabs), the first solder mark is formed by pre-welding the tab to combine the plurality of single piece tabs ([0025] pre-welding the first welding mark);
Wherein the first solder mark and the second solder mark are formed in sequence ([0052] second welding mark is formed in the middle of the first welding mark),
Wherein the first solder mark is an ultrasonic solder mark and the second solder mark is a laser solder mark ([0037] laser welding and/or ultrasonic welding can occur; through the combination of claim 1 soldering can replace welding).
Regarding claim 11, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Qi further discloses wherein the battery further comprises a cover plate assembly, and the second solder mark is formed by welding the tab and the cover plate assembly, so as to connect the tab and the cover plate assembly (Figure 3; [0009] the cover element and the tab are welded by the second welding mark).
Regarding claim 15, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Qi is silent with respect to wherein a fracture rate of a cross section of an overlapping region of the first solder mark and the second solder mark of the tab is not greater than 30%, however, this is deemed to be an inherent characteristic of the soldering marks and can be adjustable to obtain a desired degree of durability.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach the fracture rate, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the soldering marks disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the soldering marks taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, the solder marks of modified Qi inherently teaches the fracture rate being less than 30%. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 16, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Qi discloses a plurality of tabs, however, is silent with respect to there being 100 to 200 cell tabs. It would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to duplicate the number of cells and thus increase the number of cell tabs to have a number such as between 100 to 200 as a simple duplication of the battery cells for capacity purposes. The number of cell tabs can be changed to achieve a desired capacity for the battery cell as each electrode layer contains a single positive and negative electrode tab. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (US 2022/0021084 A1) in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2021/0151837 A1) and Tschiggfrei et al. (US 2017/0194610 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (US 2022/0123418 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 11. Qi further discloses wherein the welding mark is used to connect the cover plate assembly with the tabs. Qi is silent with respect to wherein the cover plate assembly comprises a cover plate and a terminal assembly, the terminal assembly is disposed on the cover plate, and the second solder mark is formed by welding the tab and the terminal assembly, so as to connect the tab and the terminal assembly.
Tang discloses a battery end cover assembly for a secondary battery having a cover assembly with a terminal member and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Tang discloses wherein the terminal assembly 50 is provided in the cover region in order to electrically connect the tabs to the terminal (Figure 4; [0097], [0120] welding occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the cover assembly of Qi to include the terminal assembly within the cover assembly as taught by Tang in order to provide terminals that extend out of the cover to electrically connect the electrode tabs to the electrode terminals as taught by Tang. The resulting modification would read on all the claim limitations of claim 12 as the terminal will be provided in the cover plate region and welded to the tab to electrically connect the tab and the terminal.
Regarding claim 13, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 11. Qi further discloses wherein the welding mark is used to connect the cover plate assembly with the tabs. Qi is silent with respect to wherein the cover plate assembly comprises a cover plate and a terminal assembly, the terminal assembly is disposed on the cover plate, and the second solder mark is formed by welding the tab and the terminal assembly, so as to connect the tab and the terminal assembly.
Tang discloses a battery end cover assembly for a secondary battery having a cover assembly with a terminal member and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Tang discloses wherein the terminal assembly 50 is provided in the cover region and electrically connected to a connecting sections 511/521 in order to electrically connect the tabs to the terminal through the connecting sections (Figure 4; [0097], [0120] welding occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the cover assembly of Qi to include the terminal assembly within the cover assembly and connecting section that connects the electrode assembly to the terminal by welding as taught by Tang in order to provide terminals that extend out of the cover and are electrically connected to the connecting section to electrically connect the electrode tabs to the electrode terminals as taught by Tang. The resulting modification would read on all the claim limitations of claim 13 as the terminals will be provided in the cover plate region and welded to the connecting section and electrically connected to the tab to electrically connect the tab and the terminal.
Regarding claim 14, modified Qi discloses all the claim limitations of claim 13. Tang further discloses wherein the adapter comprises a fuse portion ([0097] fuse is provided in the connecting section of the connector that reads as the adapter as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record because the prior art fails to teach wherein the second solder mark is formed with a circumferentially closed spaced to expose the first solder mark as Qi provides welding in a straight line and Shimizu fails to disclose the exposure of the second solder mark and thus the combination is difficult to combine. This argument is noted, however, is not found to be persuasive absent criticality or showing of unexpected results as Qi discloses two welds that overlap each other and Shimizu discloses welding having a circular ring and thus through the combination can change the second weld to have the claimed circular ring shape that would expose the first welding region. The resulting structure of the updated rejection renders obvious the structure as claimed and thus is not found to be persuasive. Additionally, applicant argues the amended claims, however, the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2018/0281093 A1)-discloses a solder adhesive for joining battery tabs having solder elements 36 having a circular shape that joins the battery tabs together.
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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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 J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728