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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 1/23/2026 have been acknowledged. Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are pending.
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 7-14 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 7 recites “each of the electrode leads is stacked and welded to form the tab, and a region formed by welding is a tab welding region” which raises confusion whether this tab welding region refers to the ultrasonic welding region of parent claim 1. Claims 8-13 are rejected for depending on the indefinite claim 7. Similarly, claim 14 recites “each of the electrode leads is stacked and welded to the tab to form a tab, and a region formed by welding is a tab welding region.” For examination purposes, the tab and the tab welding region are considered refer to the same tab and ultrasonic welding region of parent claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0305288 to Jang et al., in view of US 2022/0328938 to Chen et al.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim contains process limitations reciting “the electrode leads form the tab through ultrasonic welding, and the tab is laser welded to the base plate, the tab has an ultrasonic welding region and a laser welding region, wherein the laser welding region is located in the ultrasonic welding region, and the laser welding region is in contact with the ultrasonic welding region”, which make the claim a product-by-process claim. Only the structure implied by the process limitations carries patentable weight. In this case, a welding region joins the electrode leads to form the tab and another welding region connects the tab to the base plate, the latter located inside and in contact with the former.
Jang et al. teaches a battery, comprising:
a cell, comprising a tab, e.g. tab group G11, G12, G21, or G22 (Figs. 2-6; [0064]);
a casing or case 30, comprising an opening, wherein the cell is accommodated in the casing;
a cover plate assembly including cap plate 40, covering the opening (Figs. 1-3; [0033]); and
a terminal, fixed onto the cover plate assembly and comprising a terminal body or rivet portion 512, 522 penetrating the cover plate assembly and a base plate including a current collecting member 70 connected to a surface of the cover plate assembly facing an inside of the casing, wherein the tab is welded to the base plate (Figs. 1-3; [0033]; [0050-58]; [0061]; [0066]),
wherein the cell comprises at least one single cell, the at least one single cell has a plurality of electrode leads, and the electrode leads are overlapped and welded to form the tab, e.g. tab group G11, G12, G21, or G22 (Figs. 2-6; [0064]).
Jang et al. does not expressly teach the claimed welding regions joining the electrode leads and connecting the electrode leads and the base plate.
Chen et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery comprises a cell having a plurality of foils in a stack joined by ultrasonic welding to define a joining region 30 and a weld joint 40 is generated by laser welding within and encompassed by the joining region 30 to connect the stack of foils to a tab (Figs. 1 and 2; [0053]; [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have joined the electrode leads to form the tab and connected the tab to the base plate with the claimed welding regions, motivated by the fact that Chen et al. demonstrates that by providing a weld joint encompassed within the joining region, weld quality and strength of internal welds in a battery cell may be improved by reducing the occurrence of porosities and cracks in the foil/tab weld joints ([0008]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying a known technique/weld structure to a similar product.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Jang et al. teaches that the rivet portion 512, 522 is positioned off-centered on the current collecting member 70 toward the outer edge of the cap plate 40 as seen in Figs. 2, 5, and 6. This configuration corresponds to the claimed invention, where a projection of an axis of the terminal body (the rivet portion 512, 522) on the base plate (the current collecting member 70) is a point O; a straight line extending along a length direction of the cover plate assembly and passing through the point O is L, a center line along a width direction of the cover plate assembly is a third center line, a projection of an edge of the base plate on the straight line L forms a line segment MN, a point M is a point on the base plate farthest from the third center line, a point N is a point on the base plate closest to the third center line, and a length of a line segment NO is longer than a length of a line segment MO.
Although Jang et al. does not expressly teach that a ratio of NO to MO is 1.5 to 4 per claim 2 and 2 to 3 per claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention because the projection of an axis of the rivet portion 512, 522 on the current collecting member 70 is off-centered, which makes the NO to MO ratio greater than 1, overlapping with the claimed range. Further, the skilled artisan would have optimized the ratio of NO to MO in order to accommodate tab welding regions on the base plate and other structural elements between the two terminals.
Regarding claim 7, Jang et al. teaches that each of the electrode leads is stacked and welded to form the tab, and a region formed by welding is a tab welding region; the projection of the axis of the terminal body on the base plate is the point O, a projection of a center of the tab welding region on the base plate is a point Q, and the point Q would have been closer to the center line of the cover plate assembly than the point O, because point O of the rivet portion 512, 522 is off-centered on the current collecting member 70 of Jang et al. toward an outer edge of the cap plate 40 as seen in Figs. 2, 5, and 6.
Regarding claim 8, Jang et al. teaches that the point O and the point Q are not collinear along the length direction of the cover plate assembly because the tab groups G11, G12, G21, or G22 are on sides of the terminal body or rivet portion 512, 522 (Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, Jang et al. teaches that the cell comprises two single cells, and the two single cells are disposed side by side along the width direction of the cover plate assembly; and tabs with a same polarity of the two single cells are welded to a same base plate (Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 10, Jang et al. teaches that the two tabs welded to the same base plate are disposed on two sides of the point O along the width direction of the cover plate assembly (Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Jang et al. teaches that a center line CL of the base plate or current collecting member 70 along the length direction of the cover plate assembly is a first center line, and the point O is located on the first center line or CL; a distance from any point on a boundary of the tab welding region close to the first center line to the first center line is greater than a radius of the terminal body or rivet portion 512, 522, because the tab groups G11, G12, G21, or G22 are welded to the side of the current collecting member 70, while the terminal body or rivet portion 512, 522, the same size as through-hole 713, is on the center line CL in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 12, a center line along the length direction of the cover plate assembly is a second center line, and the first center line coincides with the second center line; the two tab welding regions are symmetrically disposed with the point O as a center of symmetry, as the tab groups G11, G12, G21, or G22 of Jang et al. are on the sides of the current collecting member 70, while the terminal body or rivet portion 512, 522, the same size as through-hole 713, is on the center line CL as seen in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 14, Jang et al. teaches that each of the electrode leads is stacked and welded to the tab to form a tab, and a region formed by welding is a tab welding region (Figs. 2 and 6; [0066]); the base plate or current collecting member 70 is provided with a hollow portion, e.g. slot 711, 712, and the hollow portion is disposed avoiding the tab welding region and the terminal body which is the same size as through-hole 713 in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 17, Jang et al. teaches that the base plate or current collecting member 70 is parallel to the cover plate assembly (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 18, Jang et al. teaches that the single cell has a main body portion and the tab including tab group G11, G12, G21, or G22 connected to the main body portion; the tab is bent and connected to the base plate or current collecting member 70, and a separation region is formed between the tab and the main body portion; the battery further comprises an insulator, e.g. top insulator 20, disposed on sides of the tab and/or the main body portion facing the separation region (Figs. 2-6; [0033]; [0039-42]; [0064]).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-061949 to Matsuura et al. (machine translation previously provided for citation), in view of US 2022/0328938 to Chen et al.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim contains process limitations reciting “the electrode leads form the tab through ultrasonic welding, and the tab is laser welded to the base plate, the tab has an ultrasonic welding region and a laser welding region, wherein the laser welding region is located in the ultrasonic welding region, and the laser welding region is in contact with the ultrasonic welding region”, which make the claim a product-by-process claim. Only the structure implied by the process limitations carries patentable weight. In this case, a welding region joins the electrode leads to form the tab and another welding region connects the tab to the base plate, the latter located inside and in contact with the former.
Matsuura et al. teaches a battery, comprising:
a cell, comprising a tab or tab group 18 (Figs. 1 and 2; [0029]);
a casing or case 11, comprising an opening 13, wherein the cell is accommodated in the casing;
a cover plate assembly including a rectangular flat plate-shaped cover 14, covering the opening (Figs. 1 and 2; [0025]); and
a terminal 15, fixed onto the cover plate assembly 14 and comprising a terminal body penetrating the cover plate assembly and a base plate or conductive member 17 connected to a surface of the cover plate assembly facing an inside of the casing, wherein the tab group 18 is welded to the conductive member 17 (Figs. 1 and 2; [0026]; [0029-31]; [0033]),
wherein the cell comprises at least one single cell, the at least one single cell has a plurality of electrode leads, and the electrode leads are overlapped and welded to form the tab or tab group 18 (Figs. 1 and 2; [0029]), and
the tab group 18 is formed via outer welded portion 31 and the tab group 18 is welded to a conductive member 17 of terminal 15 via inner welded portion 32 formed inside a region defined by the outer welded portion 31 (Figs. 2-3; [0026]; [0029-31]; [0033]).
Matsuura et al. does not expressly teach that the welding regions are in contact as claimed.
Chen et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery comprises a cell having a plurality of foils in a stack joined by ultrasonic welding to define a joining region 30 and a weld joint 40 is generated by laser welding within and encompassed by the joining region 30 to connect the stack of foils to a tab (Figs. 1 and 2; [0053]; [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding regions of Matsuura et al. so that they contact each other as demonstrated by Chen et al. because Chen et al. teaches that by providing a weld joint encompassed within the joining region, weld quality and strength of internal welds in a battery cell may be improved by reducing the occurrence of porosities and cracks in the foil/tab weld joints ([0008]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using a known alternative weld structure in a similar product.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Matsuura et al. teaches that the terminal body of terminal 15 is positioned off-centered on the conductive member 17 toward the outer edge of the cover 14 as seen in Fig. 1. This configuration corresponds to the claimed invention, where a projection of an axis of the terminal body on the base plate (the conductive member 17) is a point O; a straight line extending along a length direction of the cover plate assembly and passing through the point O is L, a projection of an edge of the base plate on the straight line L forms a line segment MN, a point M is a point on the base plate farthest from a center line along a width direction of the cover plate assembly, a point N is a point on the base plate closest to the center line, and a length of a line segment NO is longer than a length of a line segment MO.
Although Matsuura et al. does not expressly teach that a ratio of NO to MO is 1.5 to 4 per claim 2 or 2 to 3 per claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention because the projection of the terminal body of terminal 15 is positioned off-centered on the conductive member 17, which makes the NO to MO ratio greater than 1, overlapping with the claimed range. Further, the skilled artisan would have optimized the ratio of NO to MO in order to accommodate tab welding regions on the base plate and other structural elements between the two terminals.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuura et al. teaches that the terminal 15 is an integrally formed member (Fig. 1; [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuura et al. further teaches that a ring-shaped insulating ring 16 is attached to each electrode terminal 15 and does not overlap with a projection of the laser welding region along a direction perpendicular to the cover plate assembly (Fig. 1; [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, each of the electrode leads is stacked and welded to form the tab as demonstrated by Matsuura et al. and Chen et al. above, and a region formed by welding is a tab welding region; the projection of the axis of the terminal body on the base plate is the point O, a projection of a center of the tab welding region on the base plate is a point Q, and the point Q would have been closer to the center line of the cover plate assembly than the point O because point O of the terminal body of terminal 15 is off-centered on the conductive member 17 of Matsuura et al. toward an outer edge of the cover 14 as seen in Fig. 1, while the tab group 18 has a tab welding region closer to the center line of the cover plate assembly (Figs. 1 and 2; [0025]; [0026]; [0029-31]; [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, the tab welding region resulting from Matsuura et al. and Chen et al. would have been a strip-shaped tab welding region extending along the length direction of the cover plate assembly (Matsuura Figs. 1-3, 6, and 8; Chen Fig. 2); wherein a length of the tab welding region is a, and a distance between the point O and a projection point of the point Q on the center line would have been greater than or equal to 0.5a because the point O of the terminal body is farther from the center line than the entire tab welding region in Fig. 1 of Matsuura et al.
Regarding claim 17, Matsuura et al. teaches that the base plate or conductive member 17 is parallel to the cover plate assembly including the rectangular flat plate-shaped cover 14 (Fig. 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. and Chen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2019/0221791 to Wakimoto.
Regarding claim 15, Jang et al. teaches an electrolyte injection opening 42 in the cap plate 40 (Fig. 2; [0038]) and a corresponding interior electrolyte injection opening 28 in the top insulator 20 (Fig. 2; [0042]), but does not expressly teach that the cover plate body and the base plate are both provided with electrolyte injection holes, the two electrolyte injection holes are coaxially disposed, and the electrolyte injection holes are located between the two tabs disposed on the base plate.
Wakimono also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery has an electrolytic solution injection hole 15 in a sealing plate 2 (Fig. 2; [0048]) and a coaxially disposed current collector opening 6e in the positive-electrode current collector 6 (Figs. 2 and 6; [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention because Jang et al. and Wakimono demonstrate that the location of the electrolyte injection holes can vary, as long as the holes correspond to each other through the layers of the assembly so that the electrolyte can be injected into the interior of the battery. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would have positioned the electrolyte injection holes between the two tabs on the base plate so that the holes do not interfere with the connections between the tabs and the base plate while accessing the interior of the battery.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. and Chen et al. or Matsuura et al. and Chen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2012/0208074 to Byun et al.
Regarding clam 16, Jang et al. and Matsuura et al. do not expressly teach that a length of the base plate along a length direction of the cover plate assembly is 30 mm to 70 mm.
Byun et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that a total length of cap plate 151 is about 170 mm and that a length of each of the lateral regions B1 and B2 including first and second electrode terminals 122, 132 is about 20% to about 30% of the length of the cap plate 151 (Figs. 2 and 3; [0048]; [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed length of the base plate in the prior art battery, because Byun et al. suggests that the length of a terminal area B1 and B2 is about 34 to 55 mm (Figs. 2 and 3; [0048]; [0049]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the length of the base plate in order to provide sufficient space to accommodate the terminal body and tab welding regions on the base plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant amended claim 1 to recite, “wherein the cell comprises at least one single cell, the at least one single cell has a plurality of electrode leads, and the electrode leads are overlapped and welded to form the tab, the electrode leads form the tab through ultrasonic welding, and the tab is laser welded to the base plate, the tab has an ultrasonic welding region and a laser welding region, wherein the laser welding region is located in the ultrasonic welding region, and the laser welding region is in contact with the ultrasonic welding region.” While the claim is treated as a product-by-process claim and only the structure resulting from the process limitations is considered, a newly discovered reference to Chen demonstrates the claimed weld structure of providing a laser welding region within an ultrasonic welding region (see rejections above). This weld configuration would have improved the connections between the electrode leads and between the electrode leads and base plate of Jang and Matsuura, respectively. Accordingly, the alleged benefit of the claimed welding regions discussed on Page 11 of the remarks dated 1/23/2026 is expected follow.
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 HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725