Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Baek et al. (US 2011/0039130).
As to claim 1, Baek et al. discloses a battery pack (battery cell) comprising a case [0048] (figure 6), an electrode assembly accommodated in the case [0036] and including an electrode tab (230, 232) [0047], and a protection circuit (PCM 300) including a substrate tab (450-[0051]) connected to the electrode tab (Figure 7),
wherein the substrate tab includes:
a first support on a top surface of the protection circuit (410-lower connection plate),
a second support (430, 432 deformed front extensions) bendable with respect to the first support to cooperatively hold the electrode tab between the first support and the second support [0057], and a guide portion guiding a bending position of the second support (426-top).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11-12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2011/0052941A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 2017/0338520 A1).
As to claim 1, Jang et al. discloses a battery pack (100-secondary battery) comprising a case (figure 1-pouch [0038]), an electrode assembly accommodated in the case [0038] and including an electrode tab (111a, 111b)-electrode terminal), and
a protection circuit (120) including a substrate tab (123-first lead plate) connected to the electrode tab (111a),
wherein the substrate tab includes:
a first support (1231 first plate) on a top surface of the protection circuit [0053] (figures 2, 3), a second support (1232 second plate) bendable (pivotably mounted) with respect to the first support to cooperatively hold the electrode tab between the first support and the second support (see figure 3, [0053, 0057]), but does not disclose a guide portion guiding a bending position of the second support.
Lim discloses a battery device and battery connection module and teaches the addition of latching holes 251 which engage with latching posts 217 in order to bring a circuit board and frame together prior to welding [0046].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the concept of latching holes and posts to the substrate tab of Jang et al. because this would allow for the two pieces to be held together prior to welding.
As to claim 2, Modified Jang et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the guide portion includes a protruding portion (post 217) in any one of the first support and the second support and an accommodating portion (holes 251) in the other of the first support and the second support to accommodate the protruding portion.
As to claim 4, Modified Jang et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 2, wherein a top surface of the protruding portion (post 217) is exposed through the second support and where the protruding portion is inserted into the accommodating portion (251) (figure 3 depicts the protruding post through the circuit board).
As to claim 11, Modified Jang et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 2, wherein the protruding portion protrudes above the electrode tab placed on the first support.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.). In this case, as there is only two locations for applying the protruding portion, either on the first or second support (either on 1232 or 1231) it would have been obvious to try the first support for ease of folding and welding.
As to claim 12, Modified Jang et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate tab further includes a notch (1234) portion between the first support and the second support to include a boundary between the first support and the second support (figure 2 or 3).
As to claim 14, Jang et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a battery pack, the method comprising:
arranging an electrode assembly including an electrode tab on an inner space of a case (figure 1 depicts the electrode coming out of the case thus was arranged on an inner space of the case [0038];
arranging the electrode tab (111a) on a substrate tab (123-first lead plate) of a protection circuit (121)(figure 3);
bending the substrate tab [0057] and welding the electrode tab and the substrate tab to each other [0058]. However Jang et al. does not disclose bending the substrate tab such that guide portions on a side and another side of the substrate tab correspond to each other, so as to cooperatively hold the electrode tab with the substrate tab.
Lim discloses a battery device and battery connection module and teaches the addition of latching holes 251 which engage with latching posts 217 in order to bring a circuit board and frame together prior to welding [0046].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the concept of latching holes and posts to the substrate tab of Jang et al. because this would allow for the two pieces to be held together prior to welding.
As to claim 15, Modified Jang et al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein: the substrate tab (123) includes a first support (1231) placed on the protection circuit (121) and a second support(1232) bendable with respect to the first support (figure 3 [0057]), the guide portion includes a protruding portion (217 – latching posts) and an accommodating portion (251 latching holes) to correspond to the protruding portion, and the bending of the substrate tab includes determining a position of the second support and bending the substrate tab such that the protruding portion is accommodated in the accommodating portion.
Modified Jang et al. is silent as to which support plate has the holes and which has the posts.
However, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.). In this case, as there is only two locations for applying the protruding portion, either on the first or second support (either on 1232 or 1231) it would have been obvious to try the first support for ease of folding and welding.
As to claim 16. Modified Jang et al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 15, but not wherein the welding includes performing welding on a region where the first support, the electrode tab, and the second support overlap one another. However would have been obvious to do so in because this would ensure the tabs are connected to each other.
As to claim 17, Modified Jang et al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 15, wherein: Jang et al. further discloses the substrate tab further includes a notch (1234, see figure 2 or 3) portion having a boundary between the first support and the second support, and the bending of the substrate tab includes bending the substrate tab such that north portions on the first support and the second support overlap each other (see figure 3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2011/0052941A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 2017/0338520 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bucknam (US 4923406).
As to claim 13, Modified Jang et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the protection circuit includes a nesting groove recessed in a top surface thereof such that the first support is placed in the nesting groove.
Bucknam discloses a connector 10 and teaches a shaped recess 48 for locating means (col. 4 lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include a shaped recess for the connector of Jang et al. because this would allow for positioning the connector accurately on to the substrate.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2011/0052941A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 2017/0338520 A1) as applied to claim14 above, and further in view of Goldin et al. (US 11251497 B1).
As to claim 18, Modified Jang et al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the welding is of spot welding but not laser welding.
Goldin et al. discloses a method of connecting tabs can be done by either spot welding or laser welding (col. 62 lines 52-62). And teaches that either of these techniques reduce the amount of heat applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use laser welding instead of spot welding because both techniques reduce the amount of heat applied during the attachment process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 5-10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As disclosed above the closest prior art of record disclose the substrate tab connected to the electrode tab. The use of posts and openings to hold two pieces together is a known technique however none of the prior art disclose the following specific details of the post and openings in such detail:Claim 3. wherein the accommodating portion is recessed concavely on an inner side of the second support such that the protruding portion is not exposed to the outside in a state of being inserted into the accommodating portion.
Claim 5. wherein the protruding portion includes a proximal portion extending from the first support and a distal portion exposed through the second support and having an area greater than an area of the proximal portion.
Claim 6. wherein the distal portion has an area greater than an area of the accommodating portion.
Claim 7,wherein at least a part of the distal portion contacts a top surface of the second support in a state where the distal portion is forcedly inserted into the accommodating portion.
Claim 8, wherein: the first support includes a first region where the electrode tab is arranged and a second region outside the first region and in which the protruding portion is formed, and the accommodating portion is outside the second support to correspond to the protruding portion.
Claim 9, wherein the protruding portion includes a plurality of protruding portions which are separated from one another.
Claim 10, wherein: the first support includes a third region inside the second region adjacent to the second support, and the protruding portion is in the third region.
Claim 13 - the protection circuit includes a nesting groove recessed in a top surface thereof such that the first support is placed in the nesting groove.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., guide portion that determines, indicated or constrains where the front extensions bend relative to the lower connection plate”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim only states that “a guide portion guiding a fending portion of the second support” in this case a second support (430, 432) guides a bending portion of the second support (426).
Furthermore applicant states that the specification explains the guides function (page 9) but the structure is not in the claims. The claims are read in light of the specification but the limitations of the specification are not part of the claims.
Applicant appears to be arguing that Jang is drawn to a lead plate and Lim is drawn to latching holes and posts on and circuit board and frame respectively. Thus using hindsight to come to the instant claims (page 10-1)
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, Jang teaches that the first and second plates and electrode terminals are connected to each other by welding [0013]. Lim teaches the post latching holes 251 which engage with latching posts 217 in order to bring a circuit board and frame together prior to welding [0046]. Thus using the holes and post prior to welding would make welding easier since the two pieces to be held together prior to welding.
Applicant argues that Buckman is non-analogous art, after further review of applicant argument, the examiner withdraws the rejection.
Applicant argues that Goldin does not teach laser welding through a three layer clamp joint or address the welding access and energy deliver created by the Jang ref (page 14).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, one of ordinary skill would understand the differences between resistance and laser welding.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights