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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7 refer to a “first sub-portion”, a “second sub-portion”, an “area of the first sub-portion”, an “area of a second sub-portion”, a “first fusion depth”, a “second fusion depth”, a “first width”, a “second width”, and/or a “third width”. The “a depth” and “a width” can be interpreted arbitrarily based on how they are written. In other words, it is not required that what may be considered the “entirety” of a parameter necessarily be the magnitude of the claimed parameter. For example, the entirety of the “first sub-portion” is enclosed by a rectangle below but with respect to the claimed language, “first sub-portion” may be interpreted by the area enclosed by the circle in the annotated Fig. 6 below.
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 1-11 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “fastener” in claim 9 is used by the claim to mean “a fitted portion in which two portions are fitted to each other,” while the accepted meaning is “a distinguishable, additional piece that holds at least two elements together.” The Applicant implicitly acknowledges this in their specification in paragraph [0042] by stating that a “fastener 43 is a connector” as well as by listing examples of forming a fastener that requires an additional element such as “riveting” or “bolting”. However, the Applicant also includes a method of forming a fastener that does not require an additional element, namely “press-fitting”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term since it contains two opposite ideas.
Although, generally speaking, this may be interpreted as a broad definition rather than an issue under 112(b), the language of claim 9 presents a distinct issue. The issue arises specifically when claim 1 requires that the fastener be an individual element but claim 9 (dependent upon claim 1) indicates that it is no longer an individual element but merely two elements being fitted together. Either interpretation may be used in a prior art rejection for claim 9. Claims 2-8, 10, and 11 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
862
1206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazawa and further in view of Coleman (US 0658734 A) The combination of the two will be referred to as modified Kumazawa.
Regarding claim 1, Kumazawa discloses a welded metal component that comprises a busbar and an electrode (the combination of which may be interpreted as a battery terminal) may be used in a battery (abstract). It comprises a first conductive member containing aluminum (Fig. 11, white plate; [0055]) and a second conductive member containing copper (Fig. 11, shaded plate; [0055]). The second conductive member further includes a flange that is enclosed by the rectangle in the figure below. The metal joint, whose location is depicted in the figure below, is a welded part (a fused a solidified portion) that is located through the first and second conductive members [0053].
PNG
media_image2.png
618
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This welded part comprises a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion. When viewed in cross-section, an area of the second portion is 35% or less of an area of the first sub-portion. As mentioned in the claim interpretation section, the size of these areas may be chosen arbitrarily. See the figure below for an example of where an area of the second sub-portion is 35% or less of an area of the first sub-portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
331
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kumazawa, however, does not explicitly disclose a fastener that joins the first conductive member and the flange of the second conductive member at a point away from the metal joint. Coleman is analogous art to Kumazawa because both teach materials that may be used in batteries. Coleman teaches that metal pieces of material may be secured together using a rivet (paragraph 10 of the written translation), which is a type of fastener. This is a well-known method of securing multiple pieces of metal together that may be used with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the riveting technique discussed by Coleman in Kumazawa’s disclosure to create a fastener that may secure the two pieces of metal together. See MPEP 2143 (I) (B).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, when viewed in a cross-section, lengths of the first and second widths may be selected such that the ratio of the second width to the first width is 2/3 or less (as required by claim 3). When this ratio is satisfied, the first width must also be greater than the second width (as required by claim 2). See the figure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
331
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, arbitrary widths can be selected such that the ratio of the first width to the third width is within the range of 0.6 to 0.9. See the figure below:
PNG
media_image5.png
331
501
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 7, arbitrary fusion depths of the first sub-portion and the second sub-portion may be selected such that the ratio of the second fusion depth to the first fusion depth is 2/3 or less as required by claim 7. When that ratio is achieved, the first fusion depth will be greater than the second fusion depth as required by claim 6.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Kumazawa does not teach the exact location at which the fastener is located. The fastener may be located at the recess present in the first conductive member (as required by claim 8 and shown in the figure below) which indirectly secures the inner wall of said recess to the portion of the second conductive member housed in said recess. It is a design choice as to where to exactly place the fastener. See MPEP 2144.04 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to place the fastener in the recess of Kumazawa’s disclosure. Furthermore, the center of the flange is closer to the metal joint than where the fastener is located (as required by claim 10).
PNG
media_image6.png
212
284
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kumazawa does not teach the exact location of the fastener. However, it may be located at the narrower, constricted portion of the second conductive member’s flange as depicted in the figure below. Since riveting processes involve the rivet being driven into a hole flush with the surfaces it joins together, it is a fitted portion It is an obvious design choice as to where to put the fastener. See MPEP 2144.04 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to place the fastener at the constricted portion of the second conductive member.
PNG
media_image7.png
618
984
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, within the frame of reference demonstrated in Fig. 11 below, the first conductive member has a rectangular shape. Furthermore, the center of the flange is located at a different position, longitudinally than the center of the
PNG
media_image8.png
302
570
media_image8.png
Greyscale
When viewed from the side, it distinctly has a rectangular shape as seen in Fig. 2B.
PNG
media_image9.png
331
501
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazawa and Coleman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiao (CN 113403512 A). Kumazawa discusses the composition of intermetallic compounds present in the metal joint [0065] – [0073], they do not specifically address the percentage of copper content within the first sub-portion. Jiao is analogous art to Kumazawa because both discuss aluminum-copper alloys. Jiao teaches that a binary aluminum-copper alloy has good thermal stability when the copper content is greater than 3% (page 2, first paragraph). This range of 3% or greater overlaps with the claimed range of 30% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an aluminum-copper alloy with a copper content of 3% or greater in order to achieve good thermal stability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonin (US 2002/0097530 A1) discusses the structural benefit of using a 95%/5% aluminum-copper alloy compared to either pure aluminum or pure copper in an electronic device [0027].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights