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 .
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the Cu concentration in the welded portion is 8.6 % by mass or less”. However, Claim 1 indicates that the Cu concentration is 9.1 to 4.9 mass %. Therefore, in light of Claim 1, it is unclear whether the range recited in Claim 2 includes amounts below 4.9 mass %, or whether Claim 2 should indicate that the lower limit of the range is 4.9 mass %. As such, Claim 2 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the lower limit of the range recited in Claim 2 should be 4.9 mass %, as supported by Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, Claim 2 indicates that the Cu concentration is “8.6 % by mass or less”. However, Claim 1 indicates that the Cu concentration is 9.1 to 4.9 mass %. Since Claim 2 includes concentrations of Cu below 4.9 mass %, it is therefore rejected as failing to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya et al. (WO-2019177081-A1; see English translation provided 03/26/2026 for citations) in view of Chen et al. (Microstructural Characteristics of a Stainless Steel/Copper Dissimilar Joint Made by Laser Welding; see NPL provided 03/26/2026 for citations) and as evidenced by The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia (see NPL provided 03/26/2026 for citations).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Shinya discloses a sealed battery (20, Fig. 1) [0010, 0014], comprising:
an electrode assembly (22, Fig. 1) obtained by winding a positive electrode (23, Fig. 1) and a negative electrode (24, Fig. 1) with an interposed separator (25, Fig. 1) [0010, 0016, 0023];
a bottomed cylindrical outer can (50, Fig. 1) that houses the electrode assembly [0010, 0021]; and
a sealing assembly (sealing body, not shown) that closes an opening of the outer can [0022], wherein
the outer can (50, Fig. 5) and a negative electrode lead (26, Fig. 5) connected to the negative electrode [0018] are welded together at a welded portion (54, Fig. 5) formed from an outer surface of the outer can into the negative electrode lead [0020, 0035-0036, 0041], and
the outer can is made of a metal containing Fe (i.e. nickel-plated iron; [0021]).
Shinya discloses that the negative electrode lead can be made from a metal containing nickel or copper as a main component, or a metal containing both nickel and copper [0019]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the negative electrode lead to be copper with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful negative electrode lead. Therefore, Shinya renders obvious that “the negative electrode lead is made of a metal containing Cu as a main component”.
Shinya discloses that the welded portion (54, Fig. 5) is formed of a first molten portion (56, Fig. 5) which does not penetrate the negative electrode lead, and a second molten portion (58, Fig. 5) which penetrates the negative electrode lead and joins the negative electrode lead to the battery can [0020, 0035-0039, 0041-0042]. Therefore, it is understood that the welded portion (54) necessarily comprises an amount of nickel and iron (i.e. from the nickel-plated iron outer can; [0021]) and copper (i.e. from the negative electrode lead; [0019]). Shinya also discloses that laser lights are used to form the weld portion [0020, 0037, 0041]. Shinya does not teach the composition of elements in the welded portion, and therefore does not teach that the concentration of Cu in the welded portion is “9.1 to 4.9 mass %, as required by Claim 1, or “8.6 % by mass or less” as required by Claim 2.
Chen teaches the microstructural characteristics of a stainless steel/copper dissimilar joint formed by laser welding (Title). Stainless steel is understood to be primarily composed of iron, as evidenced by The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia (see attached NPL; see also Chen: Pg. 3691: Microstructures of the Welding-Brazing Mode, last paragraph; Pg. 3695: Fig. 9). Chen teaches that microcracks, which have bad effects on mechanical properties, form between stainless steel and copper during laser welding due to a thermal stress mismatch between the differing metals (Pg. 3696: Left column, last two paragraphs). The tendency of microcrack formation is related to the amount of fused copper in the weld zone (Pg. 3696: Left column, last paragraph). When less melted copper is present, the tendency of microcrack formation is lower, while if more melted copper is present, stress mismatch occurs inside the fusion zone which can lead to microcrack formation (Pg. 3696: Left column, last paragraph; Pg. 3696: Conclusions). Chen teaches that it is important to restrict the quantity of fused copper during the laser welding of stainless steel/copper in order to prevent microcrack formation (Pg. 3696: Left column, last paragraph; Pg. 3696: Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have restricted the concentration of copper is the weld zone of Shinya in order to prevent microcrack formation as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentration of copper in the weld zone, including selecting the concentration of copper to be between 8.6 to 4.9 mass%, in order to achieve a balance between minimizing the amount of copper present in the weld zone to prevent microcrack formation while ensuring sufficient mixing of the metals such that a reliable joint is formed (MPEP 2144.05, II). A Cu concentration which is between 8.6 to 4.9 mass% is within the ranges recited in Claims 1 and 2.
Although modified Shinya does not explicitly teach the relative amounts of iron to nickel in the welded portion, and therefore does not teach that Fe concentration is “90.8 to 89.8 mass%” and Ni concentration is “5.3 to 0.1 mass%”, Shinya discloses that the outer can is made of nickel-plated iron, and that the thickness of the nickel layer is 3.5 µm, while the thickness of outer can including the nickel layer is 300 µm [0021, 0054]. Therefore, the outer can is primarily comprised of iron (i.e. the Fe:Ni ratio is approximately 85:1). As previously discussed, it is understood that the welded portion inherently possess some content of Fe (i.e. 0 < Fe < 100 mass%) and some content of Ni (i.e. 0 < Ni < 100 mass%). Since Shinya discloses that the outer can is primarily comprised of iron, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have used the disclosure of Shinya as a natural starting place for determining the relative ratios of iron to nickel, including selecting the overlapping portions of the ranges, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Although modified Shinya does not explicitly teach that “a length of solidification cracks in the welded portion is 8 µm or less”, the welded portion rendered obvious by modified Shinya is substantially similar to the welded portion of the instant application. Specifically, modified Shinya renders obvious a welded portion which is formed by laser light [0020], and which has a Cu concentration of 9.1 to 4.9 mass%, an Fe concentration of 90.8 to 89.8 mass%, and a Ni concentration of 5.3 to 0.1 mass%. Accordingly, the welded portion of modified Shinya is understood to inherently have solidification cracks with a length of 8 µm or less, as evidenced by the instant application (instant specification: Table 1; [0055]). See MPEP 2112.01, I-II.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the structure rendered obvious by modified Shinya does not inherently possess solidification cracks with a length of 8 µm or less, the Examiner notes that such a configuration would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Chen. Specifically, Chen teaches that microcracks (correspond to solidification cracks) have bad effects on the mechanical property of a weld, and that the content of Cu should be reduced in the welded portion in order to reduce stress mismatch and microcrack formation (Pg. 3696: Left column, last two paragraphs; Pg. 3696: Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the content of Cu in the welded portion in order to reduce the number and length of solidification cracks (i.e. microcracks) in order to improve the mechanical properties of the welded portion, including selecting the content of Cu such that solidification cracks have a length of 8 µm or less, thereby maintaining a Cu content which achieves a balance between minimizing the amount of Cu present in the weld zone to reduce microcrack formation while ensuring sufficient mixing of the metals such that a reliable joint is formed (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claims 4-5, modified Shinya renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Shinya further discloses that the welded portion (54, Fig. 5) is a melted and solidified portion as required by Claim 4 formed by irradiating a laser on the outer surface of the outer can as required by Claim 5 [0020].
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga et al. (WO-2019044265-A1; see English equivalent US-20200259133-A1 for citations) in view of Chen et al. (Microstructural Characteristics of a Stainless Steel/Copper Dissimilar Joint Made by Laser Welding; see NPL provided 03/26/2026 for citations) and as evidenced by The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia (see NPL provided 03/26/2026 for citations).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Tominaga discloses a sealed battery (sealed cell 20, Fig. 1; [0012, 0037]), comprising:
an electrode assembly (electrode body 22. Fig. 1) obtained by winding a positive electrode (23, Fig. 1) and a negative electrode (24, Fig. 1) with an interposed separator (25, Fig. 1) [0012, 0037, 0045];
a bottomed cylindrical outer can (outer casing can 50, Fig. 1; [0012]) that houses the electrode assembly [0012, 0043]; and
a sealing assembly (sealing body, not illustrated) that closes an opening of the outer can [0044], wherein
the outer can and a negative electrode lead (26, Fig. 1) connected to the negative electrode are welded together at a welded portion (welding part 54, Fig. 1) formed from an outer surface of the outer can into the negative electrode lead [0012, 0039-0040, 0044], and
the outer can (outer casing can) is made of a metal containing Fe (nickel-plated iron; [0012, 0043].
Tominaga discloses that the negative electrode lead can be made from a nickel-based material, a copper-based material, or a metal containing both copper and nickel [0040]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific example, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have selected the negative electrode lead to be formed of copper as a main component (i.e. a copper-based material) with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful negative electrode lead.
Tominaga discloses that having a higher concentration of nickel towards the outside of the welded portion provides corrosion prevention [0065, 0075]. In a specific example (Example 1), Tominaga discloses that the corrosion preventative property is improved when the welded portion (welding part 54, Fig. 5) comprises a first layer (56, Fig. 5) with a nickel concentration of 1.24 mass % and a second layer (58, Fig. 5) with a nickel concentration of 2.17 mass % [0075], thereby anticipating such contents of nickel in the welded portion with sufficient specificity. The Examiner notes that each of the disclosed contents of nickel fall within the claimed range of 5.3 to 0.1 mass % as required by Claim 1.
As previously discussed (see above), Tominaga discloses that the welded portion (54, Fig. 5) comprises nickel and iron from the outer can [0012, 0042, 0057] and copper from the negative electrode lead [0040]. Tominaga also discloses that the welded portion is formed via laser beams [0042]. Tominaga does not specifically teach the content of copper or iron in the welded portion, and therefore does not teach that the welded portion has a Cu concentration of “9.1 to 4.9 mass %” as required by Claim 1, or “8.6 % by mass or less” as required by Claim 2, or that the welded portion has an Fe concentration of “90.8 to 89.8 mass %” as required by Claim 1.
Chen teaches the microstructural characteristics of a stainless steel/copper dissimilar joint formed by laser welding (Title). Stainless steel is understood to be primarily composed of iron, as evidenced by The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia (see attached NPL; see also Chen: Pg. 3691: Microstructures of the Welding-Brazing Mode, last paragraph; Pg. 3695: Fig. 9). Chen teaches that microcracks, which have bad effects on mechanical properties, form between stainless steel and copper during laser welding due to a thermal stress mismatch between the differing metals (Pg. 3696: Left column, last two paragraphs). The tendency of microcrack formation is related to the amount of fused copper in the weld zone (Pg. 3696: Left column, last paragraph). When less melted copper is present, the tendency of microcrack formation is lower, while if more melted copper is present, stress mismatch occurs inside the fusion zone which can lead to microcrack formation (Pg. 3696: Left column, last paragraph; Pg. 3696: Conclusions). Chen teaches that it is important to restrict the quantity of fused copper during the laser welding of stainless steel/copper in order to prevent microcrack formation (Pg. 3696: Left column, last paragraph; Pg. 3696: Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have restricted the concentration of copper is the weld zone of Tominaga in order to prevent microcrack formation as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentration of copper in the welded portion, thereby inherently optimizing the content of iron in the welded portion, including optimizing the concentration of copper to be between 8.6 to 4.9 mass % and the concentration of iron to be within the range of 90.8 to 89.8 mass %, in order to achieve a balance between minimizing the amount of copper present in the weld zone to prevent microcrack formation while ensuring sufficient mixing of the metals such that a reliable joint is formed (MPEP 2144.05, II). A Cu concentration which is between 8.6 to 4.9 mass % is within the ranges recited in Claims 1 and 2. An Fe concentration of 90.8 to 89.8 mass % corresponds to the range recited in Claim 1.
Although modified Tominaga does not explicitly teach that “a length of solidification cracks in the welded portion is 8 µm or less”, the welded portion rendered obvious by modified Tominaga is substantially similar to the welded portion of the instant application. Specifically, modified Tominaga renders obvious a welded portion which is formed by laser light, and which has a Cu concentration of 8.6 to 4.9 mass%, an Fe concentration of 90.8 to 89.8 mass%, and a Ni concentration of 1.24 to 2.17 mass% (see above). Accordingly, the welded portion of modified Tominaga is understood to inherently have solidification cracks with a length of 8 µm or less, as evidenced by the instant application (instant specification: Table 1; [0055]). See MPEP 2112.01, I-II.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the structure rendered obvious by modified Tominaga does not inherently possess solidification cracks with a length of 8 µm or less, the Examiner notes that such a configuration would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Chen. Specifically, Chen teaches that microcracks (correspond to solidification cracks) have bad effects on the mechanical property of a weld, and that the content of Cu should be reduced in the welded portion in order to reduce stress mismatch and microcrack formation (Pg. 3696: Left column, last two paragraphs; Pg. 3696: Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the content of Cu in the welded portion in order to reduce the number and length of solidification cracks (i.e. microcracks) in order to improve the mechanical properties of the welded portion, including selecting the content of Cu such that solidification cracks have a length of 8 µm or less, thereby maintaining a Cu content which achieves a balance between minimizing the amount of Cu present in the weld zone to reduce microcrack formation while ensuring sufficient mixing of the metals such that a reliable joint is formed (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claims 4-5, modified Tominaga renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Tominaga further discloses that the welded portion is a melted and solidified portion [0042, 0057, 0064-0065, 0075], and that the melted and solidified portion is formed by irradiating a laser on the outer surface of the outer can [0058, 0063-0065].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the previously cited references do not teach the specific concentrations of Cu, Fe, and Ni in the welded portion, or the length of solidification cracks as now required by amended Claim 1 (Remarks, Pgs. 4-5). Applicant notes that the secondary reference, Jeong, although disclosing a negative electrode lead formed of copper plated with nickel, does not provide the concentrations of Cu, Fe, and Ni as now recited in Claim 1 (Remarks, Pg. 5).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the claims no longer require the negative electrode lead to be plated with nickel (as previously required by Claim 3 and rendered obvious by previously relied upon Jeong), Therefore, as laid out in detail above (see rejection of Claim 1 over Shinya), the primary reference Shinya is understood to disclose a welded portion which inherently has a content of iron and nickel (i.e. from the nickel-plated iron outer can; [0021]) and copper (i.e. from the negative electrode lead; [0019]). Chen provides motivation to reduce the content of Cu in the welded portion. Although modified Shinya does not explicitly disclose the remaining content of Fe and Ni in the welded portion, Shinya is understood to necessarily possess overlapping amounts of Fe and Ni (i.e. Shinya has a content of Ni of 0 < Ni < 100 mass% and a content of Fe of 0 < Fe < 100 mass% in the welded portion, which overlaps the claimed ranges). Absent persuasive showings of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges rendered obvious by the modified Shinya with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, I).
In order to expedite prosecution, the claims are further rejected over Tominaga, which discloses contents of Ni in the welded portion which fall within the claimed range (see rejection of Claim 1 over Tominaga, above).
Applicant has argued that aspects of Claim 1 may suppress solidification cracking as evidenced by [0054-0055] and Table 1 of the instant application (Remarks, Pg. 5).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the instant specification appears to indicate that the occurrence of solidification cracking is suppressed by controlling the Cu concentration in the welded portion to be 10 % by mass or less (instant specification: [0055]). As laid out in the rejections of record, Chen provides motivation to reduce the content of Cu in the welded portion for similar reasons (i.e. to prevent the formation of microcracks; see rejections of Claim 1, above).
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of persuasive evidence / argument that the improvement in solidification cracking obtained by the instant application constitutes an unexpected result, the Examiner notes that any showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the independent claim. At the moment, Claim 1 appears closest in scope to Example 5. Specifically, Claim 1 does not require a Ni plating layer on the negative electrode lead as recited in Examples 1-4 [instant specification: 0040, 0043-0045], thereby suggesting that Example 5 (which does not have a Ni plating player; [0046]) is the intended showing of evidence. The showing of evidence (i.e. Example 5) requires the following elements which are currently not found in Claim 1:
a negative electrode lead with a thickness of 0.1 mm [0046];
an outer can with a thickness of 0.4 mm and a Ni plating layer with a thickness of 1 µm on both sides of the outer can [0042];
use of a fiber laser with a wavelength of 1070 nm [0042];
an Fe content of 90.8 mass%, a Cu content of 9.1 mass%, and a Ni content of 0.1 mass% in the welded portion.
If Applicant intends for the showing of evidence to encompass Examples 1-5, the showing of evidence appears to further require, at least:
a thickness of a Ni plating layer on both sides of the Cu negative electrode lead to be 0 µm (i.e. Example 5) to 10 µm (i.e. Example 4) [0040, 0043-0046].
For at least these reasons, Claim 1 appears to be broader in scope than the showing of evidence, and it is unclear whether any allegedly unexpected results based on the showing of evidence occur throughout the entire scope of Claim 1.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights