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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on December 26, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 24, 2025 have been received and entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satou et al (US 6117589 A).
Applicant argues that Satou is silent as to a "textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld" as recited in amended claim 1 (page 7).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on December 26, 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 on claim 1, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 6, 8, 11 and 13 on claim 1, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Claim 14 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satou et al (US 6117589 A).
Applicant argues that Satou is silent as to a "textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld" as recited in amended claim 14 (page 7).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on December 26, 2025, with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 16-18 on claim 14, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claim 15 on claim 14, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Claim 19 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Satou et al (US 6117589 A) in view of Shin et al. (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation).
Applicant argues that Satou and Shin are silent as to "a current collector laser welded with the first electrode tab, the textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation, the first electrode tab at least partially enclosed by the structural member" as recited in amended claim 19 (page 8).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed on December 26, 2025, with respect to claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 19 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claim 20 on claim 19, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection applied to this claim have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches pouch-type secondary battery (1) comprising an electrode assembly (10) formed by alternately stacking electrodes such as a positive electrode and a negative electrode and a separator, and a pouch-type battery case (13) that accommodates the electrode assembly (10) inside [0039 and Fig. 1]. The electrode assembly (10) includes electrode tabs (11) which are connected to the positive and negative electrodes of the electrode assembly (10), respectively, and protrudes to the outside of the electrode assembly (10) [0042 and Fig. 1]. The electrode tabs (11) are welded to an electrode lead (12) (current collector) [0043, 0057, Fig. 1 and Fig. 10]. From the previous description, the feature “a first electrode tab” is met, independently of which tab (11) is selected as it.
Park does not teach the feature where its first electrode tab have a “textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld”.
Shin teaches a battery cell (100) comprising an electrode assembly (20) housed inside a battery case in a structure that is wound into a round shape after interposing a positive electrode (21), a negative electrode (22), and a separator (23) between them [0057 and Fig. 1-3]. The positive and negative electrodes (21 and 23) has a positive and negative electrode tab (25 and 26), respectively, attached to the non-coated portion the electrode [0058]. A micro-protrusion (270) or a micro-groove (280), with height at least 1-1000 micrometers, is formed on the surface of one side of the electrode tabs (25 and 26) by a roughening process using a chemical or physical method [0029, 0060 and Fig. 3]. It is taught that the roughened surface of the tabs improve the welding strength of all welds performed on the electrode tabs [0060]. Ang evidence that for laser ablative purposes, the surface roughness of a material causes multiple reflection and absorption of the laser light and may enhance the absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface [p. 696; par. 1]. Despite laser ablation is not laser welding, it shares the same objective of utilize a focused laser beam to interact with the surface of a material, therefore the absorption behavior is applicable to laser welding processes.
Park is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell, comprising: a current collector; and a first electrode tab coupled with the current collector via a laser weld.
Shin is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell, comprising: a first electrode tab having a textured surface which improve the welding strength of all welds performed on the electrode tabs.
If Park electrode tabs (11) are modified to comprise the roughened surface taught by Shin and evidenced by Ang, the claimed limitations would be met.
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 modify the electrode tabs of Park to include the feature wherein it have a “textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld”, because Shin teaches the referred feature and Ang evidence that the surface roughness of a material causes multiple reflection and multiple absorption of the laser light and may enhance the absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface.
Regarding claim 2, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Park Shin and Ang. However, Park Shin and Ang teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, textured surface (135) can reduce spatter by increasing the absorption of the laser (220) into the electrode tab (130), which results on spatter amount reduction [0053].
Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed spatter amount reduction, would expectedly be achieved by a roughened electrode tab as taught by Park, Shin and Ang for claim 1. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 3, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the feature “an electrode stack having a plurality of electrode tabs, including the first electrode tab” is met. The feature “the first electrode tab having the textured surface being an uppermost electrode tab in the electrode stack” can be met from claim 1 discussion if the first electrode tab is selected as the uppermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an uppermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10).
Regarding claim 4, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Park further teaches that its electrode assembly (10) is manufactured by alternately stacking electrodes including a plurality of positive and negative electrodes and a separator [0060]. Since the positive and negative electrodes stacked in the electrode assembly (10) are formed in multiple numbers, the electrode tabs (11) are also formed in multiple numbers [0061]. From the previous teaching, if the electrode tabs (11) are selected to be 50, the claimed limitation is met.
Regarding claim 5, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the feature “an electrode stack having a plurality of electrode tabs” is met. The feature “the first electrode tab having a first textured surface being an uppermost surface in the electrode stack and the second electrode tab having a second textured surface being a lowermost surface in the electrode stack” can be met from claim 1 discussion if the first electrode tab is selected as the uppermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an uppermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10) and the second electrode tab is selected as the lowermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an lowermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10).
Regarding claim 7, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Park further teaches that the plurality of electrode tabs (11) are welded together in a second stage (S604) and then the electrode tabs (11) are weld to the electrode lead (12) (current collector) in a third stage (S605) [0069, 0081 and Fig. 6]. From the previous description, the feature “an electrode stack including an electrode stack tab, the electrode stack tab comprising the first electrode tab joined with a second electrode tab” is met from the second stage welding (S604) and the feature “electrically couple the first electrode tab with the current collector” is met from the third stage welding (S605), if the first electrode tab is selected to be the uppermost electrode tab (11) of the electrode stack (10).
Regarding claim 9, Park, Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion was evidenced that the surface roughness of a material causes multiple reflection and multiple absorption of the laser light and may enhance the absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Park, Shin and Ang. However, Park, Shin and Ang teach all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, the textured surface 135 can increase an absorption of the laser 220 and minimize a reflection of the laser 220 because the textured surface 135 can include an optical impedance tuned to minimize a reflection ratio, so that a greater proportion of the laser 220 is absorbed as the absorbed laser 420 and less is reflected as the reflected laser 230 [0050].
Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed optical impedance would expectedly be achieved by a roughened electrode tab which enhance the laser absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface, as taught by Park, Shin and Ang for claim 1. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 10, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Park further teaches that its third laser, which is employed for welding the electrode tabs (11) and the electrode lead (12) (current collector), may be an IR laser with long wavelengths in the infrared region of 800 nm or more [0057, 0075, 0085 and Fig. 6]. From Shin teachings applied on claim 1, the micro-protrusions had a height at least 1-1000 micrometers. From a micro-protrusions height/ IR laser wavelength calculation using the lower disclosed points for each variable (1 µm and 800 nm) the ratio is 125%, from which the claimed limitation is met.
Regarding claim 12, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the micro-groove (280) formed on the surface of one side of the electrode tabs (25 and 26) as taught by Shin have a peak and valley pattern, from which the feature “the textured surface including a pattern having a plurality of curvilinear lines” can be considered met.
Regarding claim 13, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the micro-protrusion (270) or a micro-groove (280) is formed on the surface of one side of the electrode tabs (25 and 26) as taught by Shin are not formed on the entirety of the tab surface, from which the modified electrode tabs (11) of Park, which include the “the first electrode tab” met the claimed limitation.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Park, J. (US 10,693,177 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Park (’400), Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the features “an electrode stack having a plurality of electrode tabs, including the first electrode tab and a second electrode tab, the first electrode tab having a first textured surface being an uppermost surface in the electrode stack and the second electrode tab having a second textured surface being a lowermost surface in the electrode stack” are met if the first electrode tab is selected as the uppermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an uppermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10) and the second electrode tab is selected as the lowermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an lowermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10).
Park (’400), Shin and Ang does not teach the feature “the current collector having a third textured surface in contact with the second textured surface, the third textured surface at least partially interlocking with the second textured surface”.
Park (‘177) teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) configured to have a structure in which a unit cell, including a positive electrode plate, a separator, a negative electrode plate, an electrode tab, and an electrode lead, or a cell assembly, constituted by two or more stacked unit cells, is contained in a pouch-shaped battery case (110 and 130) [col. 9; line 33-39 and Fig. 3]. The lithium secondary battery (100) comprises electrode tabs (121 and 122) connected to electrode leads (124 and 125) [col. 9; line 40-42 and Fig. 3]. The electrode leads (124 and 125) have textured surfaces capable of interlock with the textured surface of the electrode tabs (121 and 122) [col. 10; line 49-52, Fig. 3 and 6]. By the referred interlock feature the lower surface is in contact with the upper surface at an entirety of the overlap [claim 1].
Park (‘177) is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell, comprising: current collectors, a first and a second electrode tab having a textured surface. Where the current collectors have a textured surface capable of interlock the textured surface of the first and a second electrode tabs.
If the electrode lead (12) (current collector) of Park (‘400) is modified to comprise a textured surface and it is connected in an interlocking manner with the textured surface of the second electrode tab (11), the claimed features would be met.
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 modify the electrode lead (current collector) of Park (‘400), Shin and Ang to include the feature “having a third textured surface in contact with the second textured surface, the third textured surface at least partially interlocking with the second textured surface”, because Park (‘177) teaches that by the referred interlock feature the lower surface is in contact with the upper surface at an entirety of the overlap.
Regarding claim 8, Park (’400), Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the features “an electrode stack including an electrode stack tab joined with the current collector, the electrode stack tab including the first electrode tab joined with a second electrode tab” are met, because from the plurality of taught electrode tabs (11) a first and second tabs can be selected.
Park (’400), Shin and Ang does not teach the feature “the current collector including a second textured surface, the second textured surface to engage with the second electrode tab with the electrode stack tab joined with the current collector”.
Park (‘177) teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) configured to have a structure in which a unit cell, including a positive electrode plate, a separator, a negative electrode plate, an electrode tab, and an electrode lead, or a cell assembly, constituted by two or more stacked unit cells, is contained in a pouch-shaped battery case (110 and 130) [col. 9; line 33-39 and Fig. 3]. The lithium secondary battery (100) comprises electrode tabs (121 and 122) connected to electrode leads (124 and 125) [col. 9; line 40-42 and Fig. 3]. The electrode leads (124 and 125) have textured surfaces capable of interlock with the textured surface of the electrode tabs (121 and 122) [col. 10; line 49-52, Fig. 3 and 6]. By the referred interlock feature the lower surface is in contact with the upper surface at an entirety of the overlap [claim 1].
Park (‘177) is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell, comprising: current collectors, a first and a second electrode tab having a textured surface. Where the current collectors have a textured surface capable of interlock the textured surface of the first and a second electrode tabs.
If the electrode lead (12) (current collector) of Park (‘400) is modified to comprise a textured surface and it is connected in an interlocking manner with the surface of the selected second electrode tab (11), the claimed features would be met.
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 modify the electrode lead (current collector) of Park (‘400), Shin and Ang to include the feature “the current collector including a second textured surface, the second textured surface to engage with the second electrode tab with the electrode stack tab joined with the current collector”, because Park (‘177) teaches that by the referred interlock feature the lower surface is in contact with the upper surface at an entirety of the overlap.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Li et al. (WO 2013016877 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 11, Park, Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “the textured surface including a pattern having a plurality of circles overlapping in a first direction”.
Li teaches a battery comprising a negative electrode tab having a rectangular body (110) and a plurality of bumps (120), formed by a punch needle, arranged in two equally spaced arrays (130 and 140) and a steel shell (current collector) [001, 0015, 0024, 0027 and Fig. 1]. The bumps (120) roughen (texturize) the main body (110). From Fig. 1 is observed that the bumps (120) are not interconnected. In addition, the bumps are described to have a base diameter of 0 to 6.8 mm and a top diameter of 0 to 2.8 mm [0025]. When the bumps are seen from a top view, the top and base portions are seen as concentric circles which can be considered overlapping in the punching direction (claim 11). It is taught that the employed bump approach increases the contact resistance when the negative electrode ear is welded, thereby increasing the welding strength and making the negative electrode ear welded firmly and ensuring normal use of the battery [0028].
Li is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell comprising a current collector and an electrode tab having a textured surface electrically coupled with the current collector.
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 modify the selected “first electrode tab” of Park, Shin and Ang to include the feature “the textured surface including a pattern having a plurality of circles overlapping in a first direction”, because Li teaches that the employed approach increases the contact resistance when the electrode ear is welded, thereby increasing the welding strength and making the negative electrode ear welded firmly and ensuring normal use of the battery.
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches pouch-type secondary battery (1) comprising an electrode assembly (10) formed by alternately stacking electrodes such as a positive electrode and a negative electrode and a separator, and a pouch-type battery case (13) cell , including a positive electrode plate , a separator , a that accommodates the electrode assembly (10) inside [0039 and Fig. 1]. The electrode assembly (10) includes electrode tabs (11) which are connected to the positive and negative electrodes of the electrode assembly (10), respectively, and protrudes to the outside of the electrode assembly (10) [0042 and Fig. 1]. The electrode tabs (11) are welded to an electrode lead (12) (current collector) [0043, 0057, Fig. 1 and Fig. 10]. From the previous description, the feature “a first electrode tab” is met, independently of which tab (11) is selected as it. Park further teaches a method having the steps of manufacturing an electrode assembly (S601), contact the multiple electrode tabs (S602), primary and secondary welding of the electrode tabs (S603 and S604) and welding the electrode tabs with the electrode leads (S605) [0060-0081 and Fig. 6]. From the above descriptions, the feature “laser welding the first electrode tab to a current collector” is met.
Park does not teach the feature where its first electrode tab have a “textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld”.
Shin teaches a battery cell (100) comprising an electrode assembly (20) housed inside a battery case in a structure that is wound into a round shape after interposing a positive electrode (21), a negative electrode (22), and a separator (23) between them [0057 and Fig. 1-3]. The positive and negative electrodes (21 and 23) has a positive and negative electrode tab (25 and 26), respectively, attached to the non-coated portion the electrode [0058]. A micro-protrusion (270) or a micro-groove (280) is formed on the surface of one side of the electrode tabs (25 and 26) by a roughening process using a chemical or physical method [0060 and Fig. 3]. It is taught that the roughened surface of the tabs improve the welding strength of all welds performed on the electrode tabs [0060]. Ang evidence that for laser ablative purposes, the surface roughness of a material causes multiple reflection and multiple absorption of the laser light and may enhance the absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface [p. 696; par. 1]. Despite laser ablation is not laser welding, it shares the same objective of utilize a focused laser beam to interact with the surface of a material, therefore the absorption behavior is applicable to laser welding processes.
Park is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a method comprising a battery cell, including: a current collector; and a first electrode tab coupled with the current collector via a laser weld.
Shin is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell, comprising: a first electrode tab having a textured surface which improve the welding strength of all welds performed on the electrode tabs.
If Park electrode tabs (11) are modified to comprise the roughened surface taught by Shin and evidenced by Ang, the claimed limitations would be met.
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 modify the electrode tabs of Park to include the feature wherein it have a “textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld”, because Shin teaches the referred feature and Ang evidence that the surface roughness of a material causes multiple reflection and multiple absorption of the laser light and may enhance the absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface.
Regarding claim 16, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. From claim 14 discussion the feature “an electrode stack comprising the first electrode tab” is met. The feature “an uppermost surface of the electrode stack including the textured surface of the first electrode tab” can be met from claim 14 discussion if the first electrode tab is selected as the uppermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an uppermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10).
Regarding claim 17, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. From claim 14 discussion, the feature “an electrode stack comprising a plurality of electrode tabs including the first electrode tab and a second electrode tab” can be met. The feature “the first electrode tab having a first textured surface being an uppermost surface in the electrode stack and the second electrode tab having a second textured surface being a lowermost surface in the electrode stack” can be met from claim 14 discussion if the first electrode tab is selected as the uppermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an uppermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10) and the second electrode tab is selected as the lowermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an lowermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10). From claim 14 discussion, the feature “the textured surface to facilitate absorption of the laser to couple the plurality of electrode tabs together to form the electrode stack” is met.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Park et al. (WO 2020153570 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 15, Park (‘400) Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14, except “creating the textured surface on the first electrode tab by ultrasonically welding the first electrode tab with a second electrode tab, wherein the absorption of the laser is configured to reduce an amount of spatter during the laser welding relative to an electrode tab with a non-textured surface”.
Park (‘570) teaches a process of manufacturing a pouch-type secondary battery (1) comprising an electrode assembly (10) housed in a battery case (13) [0045]. The electrode assembly (10) includes electrode tabs (11) connected to the positive and negative electrodes of the assembly and protruding outwardly [0046 and Fig. 3]. The plurality of electrode tabs (11) are ultrasonically welded together prior to be laser welded to the electrode lead (12) [0052, 0053 and Fig. 4]. During welding, protrusions (212) of the horn (21) are embedded on the outermost surface of the electrode tabs (11), forming indented patterns (1131 and 1132) [0052, 0061 and Fig. 4-8]. It is taught that the formed patterns secures a minimum welding force of the ultrasonic welding area [0061].
Park (‘570) is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a method for provide a textured surface on a “first electrode tab” which is then laser welded to an electrode lead.
If the textured surface of the selected first electrode tab of Park (‘400) Shin and Ang is created by the method taught by Park (‘570) this claimed limitation is met.
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 modify the selected first electrode tab of Park (‘400) Shin and Ang to include the feature “creating the textured surface on the first electrode tab by ultrasonically welding the first electrode tab with a second electrode tab”, because Park (‘570) teaches that the formed patterns secures a minimum welding force of the ultrasonic welding area.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Park (‘400) Shin and Ang. However, Park Shin and Ang teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, textured surface (135) can reduce spatter by increasing the absorption of the laser (220) into the electrode tab (130), which results on spatter amount reduction [0053].
Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed spatter amount reduction, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Satou et al. (US 6117589 A) evidenced by Ghumatkar et al. (Influence of adherend surface roughness on the adhesive bond strength, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 18, Park, Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14, except “creating the textured surface on the first electrode tab by creating a second textured surface on a foil layer; and notching the foil layer having the second textured surface to form the first electrode tab including the textured surface”.
Satou teaches a lithium battery having an electrode comprising a roughened electrode tab (which can be selected as the first electrode tab) [col. 2; line 19-30]. The roughened surface of the electrode tab can be produced by abrasion by an abrasive, such as sandpaper or an abrasive material [col. 2; line 39-43]. From Satou teachings the principle of the claimed feature is taught given that “a foil with a texturized surface” is an abrasive material.
Ghumatkar evidence that with mechanical abrasion processes different surface patterns and roughness are easily obtained [p. 2357; par. 2].
Satou is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode tab (which can be selected as the first electrode tab) having a textured surface.
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 modify the selected first electrode tab of Park, Shin and Ang to include the feature “creating the textured surface on the first electrode tab by creating a second textured surface on a foil layer; and notching the foil layer having the second textured surface to form the first electrode tab including the textured surface”, because Satou teaches the general principle of the referred feature and Ghumatkar evidence that with mechanical abrasion processes different surface patterns and roughness are easily obtained.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20210138400 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Shin et al (KR 20180113693 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Ang et al. (Analysis of laser absorption on a rough metal surface, see NPL document for citation).
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches pouch-type secondary battery (1) comprising an electrode assembly (10) formed by alternately stacking electrodes such as a positive electrode and a negative electrode and a separator, and a pouch-type battery case (13) (structural member) that accommodates the electrode assembly (10) inside [0039 and Fig. 1]. The electrode assembly (10) includes electrode tabs (11) which are connected to the positive and negative electrodes of the electrode assembly (10), respectively, and protrudes to the outside of the electrode assembly (10) [0042 and Fig. 1]. The electrode tabs (11) are welded to an electrode lead (12) (current collector) [0043, 0057, Fig. 1 and Fig. 10]. From the previous description, the feature “a first electrode tab” is met, independently of which tab (11) is selected as it. From the above descriptions, the feature “laser welding the first electrode tab to a current collector” is met. From Figures 1 and 2, the feature “the first electrode tab at least partially enclosed by the structural member” is met.
As part of its background, Park teaches that secondary batteries, like the one taught by its invention, can be employed in large products requiring high output such as electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, as well as in power storage devices that store surplus power or renewable energy and backup power storage devices [0002]. From this teaching it could be reasonably thought a battery pack comprising a plurality of the taught pouch-type secondary battery (1), to meet the output requirements of the large products.
Park does not teach the feature where its first electrode tab have a “textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld”.
Shin teaches a battery cell (100) comprising an electrode assembly (20) housed inside a battery case in a structure that is wound into a round shape after interposing a positive electrode (21), a negative electrode (22), and a separator (23) between them [0057 and Fig. 1-3]. The positive and negative electrodes (21 and 23) has a positive and negative electrode tab (25 and 26), respectively, attached to the non-coated portion the electrode [0058]. A micro-protrusion (270) or a micro-groove (280) is formed on the surface of one side of the electrode tabs (25 and 26) by a roughening process using a chemical or physical method [0060 and Fig. 3]. It is taught that the roughened surface of the tabs improve the welding strength of all welds performed on the electrode tabs [0060]. Ang evidence that for laser ablative purposes, the surface roughness of a material causes multiple reflection and multiple absorption of the laser light and may enhance the absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface [p. 696; par. 1]. Despite laser ablation is not laser welding, it shares the same objective of utilize a focused laser beam to interact with the surface of a material, therefore the absorption behavior is applicable to laser welding processes.
Park is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell, including: a current collector; and a first electrode tab coupled with the current collector via a laser weld.
Shin is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery cell, comprising: a first electrode tab having a textured surface which improve the welding strength of all welds performed on the electrode tabs.
If Park electrode tabs (11) are modified to comprise the roughened surface taught by Shin and evidenced by Ang, the claimed limitations would be met.
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 modify the first electrode tab of Park to include the feature wherein it have a “textured surface to facilitate an absorption of a laser during a laser welding operation to form the laser weld”, because Shin teaches the referred feature and Ang evidence that the surface roughness of a material causes multiple reflection and multiple absorption of the laser light and may enhance the absorption by an order of magnitude over that on a perfectly flat surface.
Regarding claim 20, Park Shin and Ang teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 19. From claim 19 discussion, the feature “an electrode stack comprising a plurality of electrode tabs including the first electrode tab and a second electrode tab” can be met. The feature “the first electrode tab having a first textured surface being an uppermost surface in the electrode stack and the second electrode tab having a second textured surface being a lowermost surface in the electrode stack” can be met from claim 19 discussion if the first electrode tab is selected as the uppermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an uppermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10) and the second electrode tab is selected as the lowermost electrode tab (11) and its roughened surface selected to be at an lowermost electrode tab in the electrode stack (10). From claim 19 discussion, the feature “the textured surface to facilitate absorption of the laser to couple the plurality of electrode tabs together to form the electrode stack” is met.
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 GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:30 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 04/14/2026
Prosecution Insights