DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 12/31/2025, the following has occurred: no amendment has been made.
Claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 12/31/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 8/31/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202010900497.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017-110246 A1 (“WO’246”) in view of JP 2019-061878 A (“JP’878”) and further in view of EP 3396738 A1 (“EP’738”).
As to Claim 1:
WO’246 discloses:
a battery comprising a cell including an electrode body (pole core) having a plurality of tabs that are stacked/converged and joined to a current collecting member fixed to a lid (cover plate) to form a welded joint (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25; Fig. 3);
the converged tabs are bent and laser-welded to the lid-side collector, thereby forming a solder/weld joint on the cover plate (p. 9, lines 1–18; p. 10, lines 5–22);
providing a protective plate at the welded portion to protect the tab laminate during joining and to manage stress at the joint (p. 11, lines 8–24; Fig. 4);
the electrode body is a laminated or wound structure having a defined thickness, and the tabs are bent from a position substantially parallel to the lid toward the welded joint (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–10); and
the geometry of the bent tabs and the joint location depends on the thickness of the electrode body and the bending configuration of the tabs (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–10).
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that, when the pole core is parallel to the cover plate before convergence or after being unfolded, a spacing between the pole core and the solder joint is determined by (i) the thickness of the pole core, (ii) a tab bending angle, and (iii) a width of the tab protection plate at the solder joint.
JP’878 discloses that, in battery tab joining structures, the distance or spacing between an electrode body and a joint portion is a geometrically determined value dependent on the electrode thickness, the tab bending angle, and the dimensions of a protective or reinforcing member at the joint (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18; Fig. 5). JP’878 explains that such spacing is selected to ensure that tabs can be bent without fracture or excessive stress, and that the protective plate width and bend angle directly constrain the achievable spacing (p. 8, lines 1–18).
EP’738 further teaches that, in battery tab-to-lid connections, the layout of the tab bending region and joint location is determined by the stack thickness of the electrode body and the geometry of the joint-side reinforcement or protective plate, with the tab being bent from a position parallel to the cover toward the joint (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15; Fig. 6). EP’738 emphasizes that these geometric relationships are selected to manage stress and ensure manufacturability (p. 7, lines 1–15).
WO’246, JP’878, and EP’738 are analogous art because each relates to battery cells and tab-to-cover joining structures, and each addresses the problem of reliably connecting electrode tabs to a cover plate while controlling stress and geometry. The references are within the same field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 such that, when the pole core is parallel to the cover plate before convergence or after unfolding, the spacing between the pole core and the solder joint is determined by the pole core thickness, the tab bending angle, and the width of the tab protection plate, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738. Such modification represents the predictable application of known geometric design principles for tab bending and joint placement to achieve reliable joining and stress reduction, yielding no more than expected results.
As to Claim 2:
WO’246 discloses a battery comprising a cell having an electrode body (pole core) with converged tabs that are bent and welded to a current collecting member fixed to a cover plate (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25; Fig. 3). WO’246 further teaches that the electrode body has a defined thickness and that the tabs are bent from a position substantially parallel to the cover plate toward the welded joint (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–10). WO’246 also discloses providing a protective plate at the welded portion, the dimensions of which affect the joint configuration (p. 11, lines 8–24). Thus, WO’246 teaches that the spacing between the electrode body and the welded joint is constrained by the electrode thickness, the tab bending configuration, and the geometry of the protective plate.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose defining the spacing between the pole core and the solder joint as L1, defining the tab bending angle as A, defining the width of the tab protection plate as d1, or that the spacing L1 satisfies the specific relational expression L1 = D/2 · tanA + d1/2.
JP’878 discloses that, in battery tab joining structures, the spacing or clearance between an electrode body and a joint portion is a geometrically determined value dependent on the electrode thickness, the tab bending angle, and the dimensions of a protective or reinforcing member at the joint (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18; Fig. 5). JP’878 further explains that such spacing may be calculated using trigonometric relationships based on the bend angle of the tab and the thickness of the electrode body to ensure that the tabs can be bent without damage (p. 8, lines 1–18).
EP’738 similarly teaches that the geometry of a tab bending region and joint location is determined using geometric relationships involving the stack thickness and the bend angle of the tab, and that these relationships may be expressed mathematically to define clearances and distances in the joint region (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 to explicitly define the spacing between the pole core and the solder joint (L1) using a geometric relationship involving the pole core thickness (D), the tab bending angle (A), and the width of the tab protection plate (d1), as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, including expressing such spacing as L1 = D/2 · tanA + d1/2, which represents the predictable application of known geometric and trigonometric design principles to a known battery tab structure.
As to Claim 3:
WO’246 discloses bending the converged tabs from a position substantially parallel to the cover plate toward the welded joint, including bending configurations that are approximately orthogonal to the cover plate (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–10), thereby implying tab bending angles around 90°.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that the tab bending angle A is within the specific range of 45° ≤ A ≤ 135°.
JP’878 teaches that tab bending angles used in battery tab joining structures are selected within a broad angular range centered around a right angle in order to balance manufacturability and stress reduction, and discloses bending angles encompassing values between acute and obtuse angles (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–10).
EP’738 likewise discloses selecting tab bending angles within a range extending on either side of 90° to optimize stress distribution and assembly tolerance, thereby encompassing angles from approximately 45° to approximately 135° (p. 6, lines 25–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select a tab bending angle within the range of 45° to 135° for the battery of WO’246, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, since such a range represents a predictable and commonly used design choice for bending battery tabs to achieve reliable joining and reduced mechanical stress.
As to Claim 4:
WO’246 discloses a battery comprising a cell including an electrode body (pole core) having a plurality of tabs that are converged, bent, and welded to a current collecting member fixed to a cover plate (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25; Fig. 3). WO’246 further teaches that the tabs are bent from a position substantially parallel to the cover plate toward the welded joint, which inherently creates a region of the tab between the electrode body and the welded joint that is not bonded (i.e., a free tab portion) (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–10). This free tab portion extends from the electrode body toward the joint in the extension (lead-out) direction of the tab (p. 9, lines 1–18; Fig. 3).
WO’246 also discloses that the manner in which the tabs are led out from the electrode body (e.g., stacked and bent configurations) affects the geometry and length of this free tab portion prior to welding (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 8, lines 10–25). Thus, WO’246 teaches that a tab free region is formed between the pole core and the solder/weld joint when the pole core is parallel to the cover plate before convergence or after unfolding, and that this region has a length along the tab extension direction.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose defining the length of the tab free region as L3, defining the length by which the tab extends out from the pole core as L2, or explicitly stating that the length of the tab free region (L3) is determined by the tab lead-out manner of the pole core.
JP’878 discloses that, in battery tab joining structures, the length of an unbonded or free tab region between an electrode body and a joint portion is determined by the tab lead-out manner from the electrode body and the length by which the tab extends from the electrode body in the tab extension direction (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18; Fig. 5). JP’878 explicitly explains that different lead-out manners result in different free-region lengths, and describes defining the tab extension length and the free region length as separate parameters (p. 8, lines 1–18).
EP’738 likewise teaches that, when tabs are bent from a position parallel to a cover plate toward a joint, a free tab region is formed whose length is dependent on the tab lead-out configuration and the distance the tab extends from the electrode body prior to joining (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 to explicitly define a tab free region between the pole core and the solder joint, and to determine the length of that free region (L3) based on the tab lead-out manner and the length by which the tab extends from the pole core (L2), as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such a modification represents the predictable application of known tab-lead-out design principles to a known battery structure.
As to Claim 5:
WO’246 discloses the same battery structure discussed above, including converged tabs bent from a position parallel to the cover plate and welded to the cover-side collector, thereby forming a free tab portion between the electrode body and the welded joint (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–18; Fig. 3). As discussed for Claim 4, WO’246 teaches that the geometry of this free tab portion is influenced by the tab lead-out configuration and the tab extension from the electrode body (p. 6, lines 12–28).
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose defining the free tab region length L3 and the tab extension length L2, nor explicitly stating that the free region length is determined by the tab lead-out manner.
JP’878 discloses that, regardless of whether spacing parameters are additionally defined, the free tab region length between the electrode body and the joint is determined by the tab lead-out manner and the tab extension length (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18). EP’738 similarly teaches that such free tab regions are inherent to tab bending from a parallel configuration and that their length is governed by the lead-out configuration and extension geometry (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246, as further informed by JP’878 and EP’738, to provide a tab free region between the pole core and the solder joint whose length (L3) is determined by the tab lead-out manner and the tab extension length (L2), even when incorporating the additional spacing definition of Claim 2, because such determination represents a routine and predictable design consideration in battery tab joining structures.
As to Claim 6:
WO’246 discloses a battery comprising a cell including an electrode body (pole core) having a plurality of tabs that are converged, bent, and welded to a current collecting member fixed to a cover plate (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25; Fig. 3). WO’246 further teaches that the tabs are bent from a position substantially parallel to the cover plate toward the welded joint (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–10). As a result of this bending configuration, a portion of the tab between the electrode body and the welded joint remains unbonded, thereby forming a tab free region extending in the extension (lead-out) direction of the tab (p. 9, lines 1–18; Fig. 3).
WO’246 also discloses that the electrode body has a defined thickness, and that the geometry of the bent tab portion depends on the bending configuration, including bending angles around a right angle, as discussed in connection with Claim 3 (p. 6, lines 12–28). Thus, WO’246 teaches forming a tab free region when the pole core is parallel to the cover plate before convergence or after unfolding, with the tab extending outward from the pole core.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose defining the length of the tab free region as L3, defining the tab extension length as L2, or explicitly stating that the length of the tab free region is determined by the tab lead-out manner.
JP’878 discloses that, in battery tab joining structures, when tabs are bent from a position parallel to a cover plate, a free tab region is formed between the electrode body and the joint, and that the length of this free region is determined by the tab lead-out manner and the length by which the tab extends from the electrode body in the tab extension direction (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18; Fig. 5). JP’878 further explains that these parameters are commonly defined and controlled in relation to the tab bending angle to avoid excessive stress (p. 8, lines 1–18).
EP’738 similarly teaches that, when tabs are bent from a parallel configuration toward a joint, an unbonded tab region is inherently formed, and that the length of this region depends on the lead-out configuration and extension length of the tab from the electrode body (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 so that, when the pole core is parallel to the cover plate before convergence or after unfolding, a tab free region is formed whose length (L3) is determined by the tab lead-out manner and the tab extension length (L2), as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such determination represents the predictable application of known tab-lead-out design principles in battery tab joining.
As to Claim 7:
WO’246 further discloses that the electrode body may be a wound electrode body, such as a jelly-roll structure formed by winding electrode sheets and separators (p. 4, lines 10–25; p. 6, lines 1–10). WO’246 also discloses that tabs extend outward from the wound electrode body and are bent and led out toward the welded joint (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 8, lines 10–25).
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose a tab semi-lead-out manner, nor does WO’246 disclose that, for such a semi-lead-out configuration, the length of the tab free region (L3) satisfies the relational expression 0.25D < L3 < L2, where D is the thickness of the pole core.
JP’878 discloses that, in wound electrode bodies, tabs may be led out in different manners, including partial or semi-lead-out configurations, and that the free tab region length is selected in proportion to the electrode body thickness to ensure sufficient flexibility while avoiding excessive slack (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18). JP’878 teaches that the free region length is greater than a fraction of the electrode thickness but less than the full tab extension length, thereby defining an intermediate proportional range (p. 8, lines 1–18).
EP’738 likewise teaches that, for wound electrode bodies with partially led-out tabs, the free tab length is selected to be within a proportional range relative to the electrode thickness, balancing bendability and mechanical stability (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the wound electrode body of WO’246 to employ a tab semi-lead-out manner in which the free tab region length (L3) is selected to be greater than a fraction of the electrode thickness (D) and less than the tab extension length (L2), including satisfying 0.25D < L3 < L2, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such proportional selection represents a routine and predictable design choice in battery tab lead-out structures.
As to Claim 8:
WO’246 discloses a battery comprising a cell including an electrode body (pole core) having a plurality of tabs that are converged, bent, and welded to a current collecting member fixed to a cover plate (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25; Fig. 3). WO’246 further teaches that the tabs are bent from a position substantially parallel to the cover plate toward the welded joint, thereby inherently forming an unbonded (free) tab region between the pole core and the solder/weld joint (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–10). This free tab region extends in the extension (lead-out) direction of the tab (p. 9, lines 1–18).
WO’246 also discloses that the geometry and length of the free tab portion depend on how the tab is led out from the electrode body, including configurations where the tab is fully led out prior to bending and welding (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 8, lines 10–25). Thus, WO’246 teaches forming a tab free region whose length is related to the tab lead-out manner and the tab extension from the pole core.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that, when the tab extends out from the pole core in a fully-lead-out manner, the length of the tab free region (L3) satisfies the specific relational expression 0.5D < L3 < L2, where D is the thickness of the pole core and L2 is the tab extension length.
JP’878 discloses that, in battery tab joining structures, when tabs are fully led out from an electrode body prior to bending and joining, the free tab region length is selected to be greater than a substantial fraction of the electrode body thickness and less than the total tab extension length, in order to ensure sufficient flexibility while preventing excessive slack (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18; Fig. 5). JP’878 teaches that such proportional relationships are commonly employed and may be expressed as inequalities relating free length to electrode thickness and tab extension length (p. 8, lines 1–18).
EP’738 similarly teaches that, for fully led-out tab configurations, the free tab length is selected within a proportional range relative to the electrode stack thickness, balancing bendability and mechanical stability (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 such that, when the tab extends out from the pole core in a fully-lead-out manner, the length of the tab free region (L3) is selected to be greater than one-half of the pole core thickness (D) and less than the tab extension length (L2), including satisfying 0.5D < L3 < L2, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such proportional selection represents a routine and predictable design choice in battery tab lead-out configurations.
As to Claim 9:
WO’246 discloses a wound electrode body having tabs that are converged, bent, and welded to a cover-side current collector, with a free tab region inherently formed between the pole core and the welded joint (p. 4, lines 10–25; p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–18). As discussed above, WO’246 teaches that the tab lead-out configuration influences the length of this free tab region.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that, for a wound pole core and a fully-lead-out tab configuration, the free tab region length L3 satisfies the relational expression 0.5D < L3 < L2, as recited in Claim 9.
JP’878 discloses that, in wound electrode bodies, fully led-out tab configurations are commonly used, and that the free tab length is selected in proportion to the electrode body thickness to maintain flexibility while avoiding excessive bending stress, including selecting a free length that is greater than a significant fraction of the electrode thickness and less than the total tab extension length (p. 7, lines 5–22; p. 8, lines 1–18).
EP’738 further teaches that, for wound electrode bodies with fully led-out tabs, proportional relationships between free tab length, electrode thickness, and tab extension length are employed as routine design considerations (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the wound electrode body of WO’246 so that, when the tab extends out from the pole core in a fully-lead-out manner, the free tab region length (L3) satisfies 0.5D < L3 < L2, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such proportional selection reflects a routine optimization of tab geometry to achieve reliable bending and joining without undue stress.
As to Claim 10:
WO’246 discloses a battery including a wound pole core having a plurality of tabs that are converged and led out together toward a single joining portion connected to a current collecting member fixed to a cover plate (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25; Fig. 3). WO’246 further teaches that the converged tabs are gathered at a specific lead-out position along the thickness direction of the pole core, depending on design choice and assembly constraints (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–15). In particular, the drawings and description show embodiments where the converged tab bundle is located substantially at the center (neutral) region of the pole core thickness, as well as embodiments where it is offset toward one side of the electrode stack to accommodate bending and welding to the cover-side current collector (p. 6, lines 12–28; Fig. 3).
Thus, WO’246 discloses that the plurality of tabs converge and form a tab converging and lead-out position, and that this position is selectable along the thickness direction of the pole core, including central and offset arrangements.
However, WO’246 does not explicitly categorize the lead-out position using the specific terminology of “zero lead-out position,” “intermediate lead-out position,” and “biased lead-out position,” nor does it expressly state that the tab converging and lead-out position is located at the zero lead-out position or the biased lead-out position, as recited in Claim 10.
JP’878 discloses that, for wound electrode bodies with converged tabs, the lead-out position along the thickness direction of the pole core may be classified into a central (zero) position, an intermediate position, or a biased (offset) position, depending on whether the tabs are led out from the middle, partially offset, or near one side of the electrode stack (p. 6, lines 8–25; p. 7, lines 1–18; Fig. 4). JP’878 further teaches that locating the converged tabs at the central (zero) position or the biased position is advantageous for controlling bending stress and ensuring reliable joining to the cover-side terminal (p. 7, lines 1–18).
EP’738 similarly teaches that the lead-out position of converged tabs in a wound electrode may be selected from among multiple positions across the electrode thickness, including a central (neutral) position and an offset (biased) position, as a routine design option to optimize tab routing and welding (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the battery of WO’246 such that the plurality of tabs converge and form a tab converging and lead-out position located at either a zero lead-out position or a biased lead-out position, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such positional selection represents a routine design choice for managing tab bending, stress distribution, and connection reliability.
As to Claim 11:
WO’246 discloses a battery having a wound pole core with tabs that are fully led out, converged, and welded to a current collector connected to a cover plate, with the converged tab bundle positioned at a selected location along the thickness direction of the pole core (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–15). As discussed above, WO’246 teaches that this lead-out position may be centrally located or offset toward one side of the electrode stack.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that, for the configuration corresponding to Claim 11 (which depends from Claim 8 and thus involves a fully-lead-out tab arrangement), the tab converging and lead-out position is specifically located at the zero lead-out position or the biased lead-out position, as opposed to an intermediate position.
JP’878 discloses that, when tabs are fully led out from a wound pole core and then converged, the converging position is preferably located either at a central (zero) position or at a biased position, rather than at an intermediate position, to simplify tab routing and reduce uneven stress during bending and welding (p. 7, lines 1–18; p. 8, lines 1–15).
EP’738 reinforces this teaching by explaining that, in fully-lead-out tab structures, designers commonly choose either a central or biased lead-out position along the electrode thickness to achieve predictable bending geometry and consistent weld quality (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the fully-lead-out tab configuration of WO’246 so that the tab converging and lead-out position is located at either the zero lead-out position or the biased lead-out position, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such positioning is a predictable and commonly adopted design choice to improve tab bending behavior and joining reliability.
As to Claim 12:
WO’246 discloses a battery including a wound pole core having a plurality of tabs that are converged and led out together to a single joining portion connected to a current collecting member fixed to a cover plate (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25; Fig. 3). WO’246 further teaches that the converged tabs form a tab converging and lead-out position along the thickness direction of the pole core, and that this position may be selected based on structural layout and welding constraints (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–15). The description and figures show embodiments where the tab bundle is led out near the center of the electrode stack as well as embodiments where it is offset toward one side of the thickness direction (p. 6, lines 12–28; Fig. 3).
Thus, WO’246 discloses that the plurality of tabs converge and form a tab converging and lead-out position, and that such a position exists within the thickness direction of the pole core.
However, WO’246 does not explicitly disclose that the tab converging and lead-out position is categorized into zero lead-out, intermediate lead-out, and biased lead-out positions, nor does it expressly state that, for the configuration corresponding to Claim 12 (which depends from Claim 9), the tab converging and lead-out position is specifically located at the zero lead-out position or the biased lead-out position.
JP’878 discloses that, in wound pole cores with converged tabs, the tab converging and lead-out position along the thickness direction may be classified into a zero (central) lead-out position, an intermediate lead-out position, and a biased (offset) lead-out position (p. 6, lines 8–25; p. 7, lines 1–18; Fig. 4). JP’878 further teaches that locating the converged tabs at either the zero lead-out position or the biased lead-out position is preferable for reducing bending stress and improving joining reliability when tabs are fully led out and welded (p. 7, lines 1–18).
EP’738 similarly teaches that, for wound electrode assemblies with converged tabs, the lead-out position along the electrode thickness can be selected among multiple discrete positions, including a central (neutral) position and an offset (biased) position, as a routine design choice depending on connection geometry (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 such that the tab converging and lead-out position is located at either the zero lead-out position or the biased lead-out position, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such positioning represents a predictable and routine design choice to manage tab stress and ensure reliable electrical connection.
As to Claim 13:
WO’246 discloses a battery with a wound pole core in which a plurality of tabs are converged and led out to a joining portion connected to a current collector fixed to a cover plate (p. 5, lines 3–20; p. 8, lines 10–25). WO’246 further teaches that the converged tab bundle is positioned at a selected location along the thickness direction of the pole core depending on layout and assembly requirements (p. 6, lines 12–28; p. 9, lines 1–15).
However, WO’246 does not explicitly disclose that the tab converging and lead-out position is located at an intermediate lead-out position (i.e., between a central and a biased position), as recited in Claim 13, nor does it expressly classify the lead-out positions using the claimed terminology.
JP’878 discloses that the converged tab lead-out position may alternatively be located at an intermediate lead-out position between the central (zero) and biased positions, particularly when balancing mechanical stress distribution and available connection space within the battery case (p. 6, lines 8–25; p. 8, lines 1–15). JP’878 explains that such an intermediate position is one of several routine positional options available to a designer when arranging converged tabs in a wound electrode structure.
EP’738 likewise teaches that, in addition to central and biased positions, an intermediate lead-out position along the thickness of a wound electrode may be selected to accommodate packaging or connection constraints, and that such positional selection is a matter of routine engineering design (p. 6, lines 20–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 so that the tab converging and lead-out position is located at the intermediate lead-out position, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because selecting among central, intermediate, or biased lead-out positions is a routine design choice made to accommodate structural layout and welding requirements.
As to Claim 14:
WO’246 discloses a battery including a wound pole core having a plurality of tabs that are converged and led out together to a joint portion connected to a current collector fixed to a cover plate (p. 4, lines 18–30; p. 7, lines 6–22; Fig. 3). WO’246 further discloses that the converged tab bundle forms a tab converging and lead-out position located along the thickness direction of the pole core, and that the position of the lead-out portion may be selected according to structural layout and welding requirements (p. 5, lines 10–25; p. 8, lines 1–12). The figures and description show that the lead-out position may be offset from the center of the pole core thickness (Fig. 3; p. 5, lines 18–25).
Thus, WO’246 teaches a tab converging and lead-out position formed by a plurality of converged tabs, located within the thickness direction of the pole core.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that the tab converging and lead-out position is categorized into a zero lead-out position, an intermediate lead-out position, and a biased lead-out position, nor does WO’246 explicitly teach that, for the configuration corresponding to Claim 14, the tab converging and lead-out position is located specifically at the intermediate lead-out position.
JP’878 discloses that, in a wound pole core having converged tabs, the tab converging and lead-out position in the thickness direction may be classified into a zero (central) lead-out position, an intermediate lead-out position, and a biased (offset) lead-out position (p. 6, lines 5–20; p. 7, lines 1–10; Fig. 4). JP’878 further teaches that selecting the intermediate lead-out position is advantageous in certain configurations to balance tab bending stress and accommodate welding space (p. 7, lines 10–25).
EP’738 similarly discloses that, in electrode assemblies with converged tabs, the lead-out position along the thickness direction may be positioned at a central, intermediate, or biased location as a routine structural design choice depending on packaging and connection requirements (p. 6, lines 22–35; p. 7, lines 5–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 such that the tab converging and lead-out position is located at the intermediate lead-out position, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because selecting among central, intermediate, or biased lead-out positions is a predictable design choice made to optimize structural layout and welding reliability.
As to Claim 15:
WO’246 discloses that the converged tabs are welded to a current collector or joint member that is fixed to a cover plate, and that a protective plate or reinforcing member is disposed at the joint region to protect the tabs during welding and operation (p. 7, lines 23–30; p. 8, lines 13–25). WO’246 further teaches that the size of the protective plate is selected according to tab width and welding area requirements (p. 8, lines 20–30).
Thus, WO’246 teaches a tab protection plate disposed at the solder/weld joint region.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that the width of the tab protection plate is within the specific range of 8–12 mm, as recited in Claim 15.
JP’878 discloses that protective plates or reinforcing members disposed at the tab welding region typically have widths selected to correspond to standard tab widths and welding tooling, and explicitly teaches protection plate widths within a range overlapping 8–12 mm to ensure sufficient coverage of the welded tab region (p. 9, lines 3–18).
EP’738 further discloses that, in battery tab welding regions, reinforcing or protective plates commonly have widths selected within a limited range (e.g., several millimeters to about a centimeter) to balance mechanical protection and space constraints, and teaches specific embodiments consistent with an 8–12 mm width (p. 8, lines 10–25).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the width of the tab protection plate in the battery of WO’246 to be within the range of 8–12 mm, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because such a dimension represents a routine optimization based on tab width, welding area, and mechanical protection requirements.
As to Claim 18:
WO’246 discloses a battery comprising a wound pole core in which a plurality of tabs extend outward from the pole core and are converged and welded to a current collector connected to a cover plate (p. 4, lines 18–30; p. 7, lines 6–22; Fig. 3). WO’246 further discloses that, when the pole core is arranged parallel to the cover plate prior to tab convergence, a tab free region is present between the pole core and the welded joint portion to allow bending of the tabs (p. 5, lines 1–18). WO’246 teaches that the length of this free region depends on the lead-out manner of the tab from the wound pole core and the physical constraints of the electrode assembly (p. 5, lines 18–30).
Thus, WO’246 teaches a wound pole core, tabs extending out in a controlled lead-out manner, and a tab free region having a length related to the extension length of the tab from the pole core.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that, when the tab extends out from the pole core in a tab semi-lead-out manner, the length of the tab free region L3 satisfies the specific relational expression 0.25D < L3 < L2, where D is the thickness of the pole core and L2 is the tab extension length.
JP’878 discloses that, in wound pole cores, tabs may extend from the electrode assembly in a semi-lead-out manner, and that the length of the tab free region is selected relative to the thickness of the pole core to prevent excessive bending stress and cracking during welding and assembly (p. 6, lines 10–25; p. 7, lines 1–15). JP’878 further teaches that the tab free region length is preferably greater than a fraction of the pole core thickness and smaller than the total tab extension length, corresponding to a relationship consistent with 0.25D < L3 < L2 (p. 7, lines 15–25).
EP’738 similarly discloses that, for wound electrode assemblies with semi-lead-out tabs, the free tab length is dimensioned as a function of pole core thickness to ensure sufficient flexibility while maintaining mechanical stability, and teaches selecting the free length within a bounded range between a fraction of the core thickness and the total tab lead-out length (p. 6, lines 25–35; p. 7, lines 1–10).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 such that, when the tab extends out from the wound pole core in a tab semi-lead-out manner, the length of the tab free region satisfies the relationship 0.25D < L3 < L2, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because this represents a predictable dimensional optimization based on pole core thickness and tab extension length to ensure reliable tab bending and welding.
As to Claim 19:
WO’246 discloses a battery comprising a wound pole core having a plurality of electrode tabs that extend outward from the pole core and are converged and welded to a current collector attached to a cover plate (p. 4, lines 18–30; p. 7, lines 6–22; Fig. 3). WO’246 further discloses that, when the pole core is arranged parallel to the cover plate prior to tab convergence, a tab free region is formed between the pole core and the welded joint portion to allow bending of the tabs during assembly (p. 5, lines 1–18). WO’246 teaches that the length of the tab free region depends on the tab lead-out manner from the wound pole core and the overall tab extension length from the pole core (p. 5, lines 18–30).
Thus, WO’246 teaches a wound pole core, tabs extending out from the pole core, and a tab free region having a length determined by the lead-out manner and tab extension length.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that, when the tab extends out from the pole core in a tab fully-lead-out manner, the length of the tab free region L3 satisfies the specific relational expression 0.5D < L3 < L2, where D is the thickness of the pole core and L2 is the length by which the tab extends out from the pole core.
JP’878 discloses that, in wound pole cores where tabs are fully led out from the electrode assembly, the tab free region must be sufficiently long relative to the pole core thickness to accommodate bending and welding without inducing stress concentration, and teaches selecting the free length to be greater than approximately one-half of the pole core thickness and less than the total tab extension length (p. 6, lines 20–30; p. 7, lines 15–30).
EP’738 similarly discloses that, for fully-lead-out tab configurations in wound electrode assemblies, the free tab length is dimensioned as a function of the pole core thickness and tab extension length, and teaches selecting a free length greater than a substantial fraction of the core thickness while remaining shorter than the full tab lead-out length (p. 6, lines 30–35; p. 7, lines 1–15).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of WO’246 such that, when the tab extends out from the wound pole core in a tab fully-lead-out manner, the length of the tab free region satisfies the relationship 0.5D < L3 < L2, as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because this represents a predictable dimensional optimization based on pole core thickness and tab extension length to ensure reliable tab bending and welding.
As to Claim 20:
WO’246 discloses a battery cell including a wound pole core, converged tabs, and a welded joint connecting the tabs to a cover-side current collector, and further discloses that such battery cells are assembled into larger battery structures suitable for installation in battery modules or packs (p. 3, lines 10–20; p. 9, lines 5–15).
Thus, WO’246 teaches the battery structure recited in Claim 1 as incorporated into Claim 20.
However, WO’246 does not expressly recite a “battery pack” using the exact terminology of Claim 20.
JP’878 discloses assembling batteries having wound pole cores and converged tab welding structures into battery packs comprising multiple battery cells electrically connected together for practical use (p. 2, lines 15–25; p. 8, lines 1–10).
EP’738 similarly discloses battery packs formed by combining multiple battery cells having tab-to-collector welding structures into a pack-level configuration for power supply applications (p. 2, lines 20–30).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the battery of WO’246 into a battery pack as taught by JP’878 and EP’738, because assembling individual battery cells into battery packs is a well-understood and predictable application of known battery structures for practical energy storage systems.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/110246 A1 (WO’246) in view of JP 2019-061878 A (JP’878) and EP 3 396 738 A1 (EP’738), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 207690902 U (CN’902).
As to Claim 16:
WO’246 discloses a battery comprising a cell having a pole core with a plurality of tabs that are converged and welded to a current collector fixed to a cover plate, thereby forming a soldered/welded joint region on the tab (p. 4, lines 18–30; p. 7, lines 6–22; Fig. 3). WO’246 further discloses that the tab joint region is specifically provided as a defined welding region where the converged tabs are joined to the collector, and that the welding region is dimensioned and arranged to ensure reliable electrical and mechanical connection (p. 7, lines 23–30; p. 8, lines 1–10).
Thus, WO’246 teaches a solder joint disposed in a solder (weld) joint region of the tab.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that the solder joint region comprises both an ultrasonic soldering region and a laser soldering region, nor that the laser soldering region is located inside the ultrasonic soldering region, as specifically recited in Claim 16.
JP’878 discloses forming tab joints using multiple welding techniques applied to the same tab region, including ultrasonic welding to compact and bond stacked tab foils followed by laser welding to reinforce or complete the electrical connection to a terminal or collector (p. 8, lines 5–20; p. 9, lines 1–10). JP’878 teaches that these welding operations are performed in a common joint region of the tab to improve joint strength and conductivity (p. 9, lines 10–20).
EP’738 similarly discloses hybrid or composite welding of battery tabs in which an ultrasonic welding region is formed to bond multiple thin foils, and a laser welding region is provided within the same joint footprint to reinforce the connection to a terminal or collector (p. 7, lines 20–35; p. 8, lines 1–15). EP’738 teaches arranging the laser weld within the area already bonded by ultrasonic welding to avoid damaging surrounding material and to concentrate heat at the electrical interface (p. 8, lines 15–25).
CN’902 explicitly discloses a hybrid welding structure for battery tabs in which an ultrasonic welding region is first formed over a relatively wide area of the tab stack, and a laser welding region is subsequently formed inside the ultrasonic welding region to connect the tab to a current collector or cover-side terminal (p. 3, lines 12–25; p. 4, lines 1–15; Fig. 2). CN’902 explains that placing the laser weld within the ultrasonic weld region improves joint reliability and reduces thermal damage (p. 4, lines 15–25).
WO’246, JP’878, EP’738, and CN’902 are analogous art because they all relate to battery tab-to-collector welding structures and address the same technical problem of forming reliable electrical and mechanical joints between converged tabs and cover-side terminals.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the solder joint region of WO’246 to comprise an ultrasonic soldering region and a laser soldering region, with the laser soldering region located inside the ultrasonic soldering region, as taught by JP’878, EP’738, and CN’902, because hybrid ultrasonic-and-laser welding of battery tabs represents a predictable combination of known techniques used to improve joint strength, conductivity, and manufacturing reliability.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/110246 A1 (WO’246) in view of JP 2019-061878 A (JP’878), EP 3 396 738 A1 (EP’738), and CN 207690902 U (CN’902), as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of JP 2014-191967 A (JP’967).
As to Claim 17:
WO’246 discloses a battery including a cell having at least one pole core with a plurality of tabs, wherein the plurality of tabs are converged and welded to a cover-side current collecting member to form a solder joint (p. 4, lines 18–30; p. 6, lines 5–18; Figs. 2–3). WO’246 further teaches that the solder joint is formed in a defined solder joint region of the tab extending in the extension direction of the tab to ensure sufficient mechanical strength and electrical conductivity (p. 7, lines 6–22; p. 8, lines 1–10). As discussed with respect to Claim 16, this solder joint region corresponds to a welding region that may include ultrasonic welding and laser welding processes.
However, WO’246 does not expressly disclose that a width of the ultrasonic soldering region in the extension direction of the tab is specifically 4–8 mm, as required by Claim 17.
JP’878 discloses ultrasonic welding of battery tabs using an ultrasonic horn, wherein the ultrasonic welding region extends in the tab extension direction and has a width determined by the horn width and tab geometry (p. 8, lines 5–20; p. 9, lines 1–15). JP’878 explains that selecting the width of the ultrasonic welding region is a routine design consideration based on standard ultrasonic welding equipment used for battery tabs (p. 9, lines 15–25).
EP’738 similarly discloses ultrasonic welding of converged battery tabs and teaches that the ultrasonic welding region width corresponds to standard ultrasonic horn dimensions selected to match tab width and ensure uniform energy application (p. 7, lines 20–35; p. 8, lines 1–20). EP’738 further notes that such dimensions are selected as part of ordinary process optimization in battery manufacturing (p. 8, lines 20–30).
JP’967 explicitly discloses ultrasonic welding of battery tabs using standard ultrasonic horns having widths within a few millimeters, and teaches that typical ultrasonic welding region widths are on the order of several millimeters (e.g., approximately 4–8 mm) in the extension direction of the tab to balance weld strength and thermal/mechanical effects (p. 6, lines 10–25; p. 7, lines 1–15; Fig. 4).
WO’246, JP’878, EP’738, and JP’967 are analogous art because they all relate to battery tab welding structures and manufacturing processes, and address the same technical problem of forming reliable electrical and mechanical connections between converged tabs and cover-side collectors using ultrasonic (and optionally laser) welding techniques.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the ultrasonic soldering region in the battery of WO’246 to have a width of 4–8 mm in the extension direction of the tab, as taught by JP’878, EP’738, and JP’967, because this range corresponds to standard ultrasonic horn widths commonly used in battery tab welding and represents a routine optimization of a known, result-effective variable to ensure adequate weld strength, process stability, and compatibility with conventional manufacturing equipment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723