DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/23/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been substantively amended, supported by the drawings filed 09/13/2023. Claim 7 scope includes some limitations from previous claims 8-9 (now canceled) but has also been narrowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive because the amendments to claim 1 necessitated updated search which revealed the additional grounds of rejection applied below, such that arguments solely relying on Park are not persuasive since Park is now modified in view of teaching reference. Arguments regarding Park not meeting claim 7 limitations are also not persuasive, since claim 7 as been narrowed in scope and clarified, such that the interpretation of Park as applied in the rejection below does satisfy claim 7 in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (KR 20200039923 A, as cited in Applicant’s IDS filed on September 13th, 2023; see Machine Translation attached to previous Office action for citations).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a stacked and bonded structure of lithium electrode tab and a metal tab ([0029]), wherein
the stacked and bonded structure (homogenous bonding, [0027]) is configured such that: both side portions in a longitudinal direction of the lithium electrode tab, which is bonded to the metal lead (electrode tabs are joined to both sides of them metal lead, [0025, 0029]), are molded to have a plane (both lead and tab are in a plane, Fig. 2);
the lithium electrode tab has step differences on a lower surface and an upper surface thereof (hole 12 formed through lead 10 where tabs 20a/b are pressed into lower and upper surfaces thereof per [0023, 0027], such that the overall “stacked and bonded structure” yields a stepped structure where upper surface of 20b and lower surface of 20a are pressed into 12 – see Figs. 1 and 3(b)); and
the metal lead is stacked on a lower end of the step difference on the upper surface of the lithium electrode tab (10 and upper surface of 20b stacked at step formed by hole 12, Fig. 1 – 20a/10/20b homogenously bonded through 12, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses the limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the step difference is formed by placing one end of the lithium electrode tab in the molding groove of a mold stacking one end of the metal lead on an upper portion of the lithium electrode tab, and pressuring an upper portion of the metal lead stacked on the lithium electrode tab (jig mold of lithium electrode tab, [0028], bent molded portion is formed at the joint portion between the metal lead and the lithium electrode tabs, [0029], lead is pressured after portion of stacked electrode tab through mechanical compression process, [0025], Figs. 1 and 3(b) shows stepped structure of electrode tabs-20a/20b and metal lead-10 connected through the hole 12, [0020, 0027]).
Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses the limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein an end surface of the metal lead bonded to the lithium electrode is bonded to a surface of the step difference of the lithium electrode tab without a gap (metal lead-10 is directly bonded to the tab-20a/20b through hole 12 homogenously with no gap, Figs. 1 and 3(b), [0027, 0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses the limitations as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein an end surface of the lithium electrode tab bonded to the metal lead in a direction towards the metal lead molded to have a plane (both lead and tab are in a plane on an end surface of the electrode tab, Fig. 2 – homogenous bonding of [0027] also implies shared plane).
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses the limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Park discloses wherein an upper surface and lower surface of the lithium electrode tab bonded to the metal lead are molded to form planes to give a uniform thickness (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, a uniform thickness can be interpreted to mean that the thickness of the various tab metal lead structures have the same stacked thickness when pressed and together, thickness of various tabs and leads can have a range of same thicknesses forming uniform thickness, [0024] – also when homogenously bonded per [0027] and Fig. 3(b), 10 and 20a/b where bonded through 12 would share a plane and share a thickness dimension).
Regarding Claim 14, Park discloses the limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the lithium secondary battery comprises a free-standing lithium electrode ([0034]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20200039923 A, as cited in Applicant’s IDS filed on September 13th, 2023; see Machine Translation attached to previous Office action for citations) in view of Lilley et al. (US 20150056506 A1) and Kim (US 20160141709 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a method of bonding a lithium electrode tba and a metal lead ([001]), the method comprising:
A preparing a mold (jig mold of lithium electrode tab, [0028]);
Positioning one end of the lithium electrode lead in a molding groove of the mold (bent molded portion is formed at the joint portion between the metal lead and the lithium electrode tabs, [0025, 0028-0029]);
Stacking ([0025]) one end of the metal lead on an upper portion of the lithium electrode tab (Figs. 1 and 3(b)) positioned in the molding groove (electrode tabs are joined to both sides of them metal lead, [0029]); and
Pressuring an upper portion of the metal lead stacked on the lithium electrode tab (lead is pressured after portion of stacked electrode tab through mechanical compression process, [0025, 0028]),
but fails to teach:
wherein a width of the molding groove is wider than a width of the lithium electrode tab, and a depth of the molding groove is shallower than a thickness of the lithium electrode tab, and wherein an outer periphery of the lithium electrode tab is shaped by the mold by the pressurizing in step (d).
However, Park does teach in [0029] that a bent molded portion is formed at the joint portion between the metal lead and lithium tabs (shown also in Fig. 3(b)), which thus reads on “an outer periphery of the lithium electrode tab is shaped” during the joining step which includes compression in the jig frame (per [0026-0028]).
Lilley is analogous in the art of lithium electrodes and pertinent to the problem of connecting an electrode tab with a conductive lead (abstract). Lilley teaches a mold/positioning jig 16 for supporting the parts 18 which are pressured between clamping portions 12 and 14 ([0077-0078] and Fig. 4), such that a molding groove is formed on 12 between sides of 16 (Figs. 4a, 4d). Parts 18 correspond to electrode tabs 2 and lead 4 (in view of Lilley [0076] and Fig. 3). Lilley shows positioning jig 16 (and thus molding groove as cited above) having a width wider than a width of the lithium electrode tab (tab 2 of Fig. 3 – represented by 18 in Fig. 4 – shown narrower than molding groove between sides of 16 in Fig. 4). Such accomplishes Lilley’s goal in [0077] of positioning and supporting the pressed parts, which agrees with Park’s use of the jig mold in [0028]. Once pressed between clamping portions 12/14, the outer surface of the tab becomes shaped as shown in Lilley Fig. 4d.
Kim is analogous in the art of battery manufacturing and pertinent to the problem of joining metal layers. Kim teaches multi-tabs 11 get pressed into an arch-shape at 11b (Figs. 4-5) which is similar to the resultant bonding portion per Park [0029] and Fig. 3(b). Kim teaches such arch-shape is formed by pressing from 21 into mold 22 ([0044-0046] and Figs. 2-3), and that this shape is beneficial for dampening external impacts and vibrations ([0045, 0047]). As shown in Fig. 2 and explained in [0044-0045] of Kim, the depth of the groove 22a is shallower than a thickness of the electrode tabs and the outer surface of the electrodes tab is shaped by the mold by the pressurizing.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lead-tab connection joint of Park to be made in a mold shaped like that having the relative groove thickness as taught by Kim with the motivation of achieving the desired arch-shape to minimize damage by dampening external impacts and vibrations.
Thus, the instant claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Park does not directly disclose wherein the molding groove in step (a) is continuously formed from a fore-end to a distal end in a direction towards the metal lead of the mold.
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “continuously formed from a fore-end to a distal end in a direction towards the metal lead of the mold” can be interpreted to mean any mold structure that starts at the electrode lead and extends in a direction the lead extends. Park discloses wherein the jig mold is made to maintain the shape of the lithium electrode tab ([0028]). Park further discloses wherein the electrode tabs-20/20b are extend in a distal end of the electrode metal lead-10 ([0029], Fig. 1). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Park to have wherein the molding groove in step (a) is continuously formed from a fore-end to a distal end in a direction towards the metal lead of the mold.
Further, the mold 22 with groove 22a of Kim as applied to modified Park above is shown generally extending in the extension direction of tabs 11 (Kim Fig. 3). Thus, the combination obviates the instant claim 2 limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Park discloses wherein the jig mold is made to maintain the shape of the lithium electrode tab ([0028]). Park further discloses wherein the electrode tabs-20/20b are shaped rectangularly ([0029], Fig. 1). Park further discloses wherein the hole that formed the metal lead is rectangular in shape ([0025]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Park to such that the molding groove step (a) has a shape of a rectangular groove of which one side is opened, and the opened one side is located on a side of an electrode coupled to the lithium electrode tab.
Lilley as applied to modified Park above also teaches in Fig. 4 that the molding groove (formed between sides of jig 16 and on clamping portion 12) has a generally rectangular shape and is open on one side in order to expectedly accommodate the to-be-joined pieces of electrode lead and tab (see also Lilley Fig. 3). Therefore, ensuring the mold of modified Park had such structure would have been obvious and rendered obvious the limitation of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 15, modified Park teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as set forth above. Park does not directly disclose wherein the molding groove has a width of 0.5 to 1 time width of the metal lead. However, Park discloses wherein the hole can have a width of 2mm to 3.5mm when the lead width can be 4 mm ([0021]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 0.5 to 1 time width of the metal lead.
The examiner notes that the groove width is based on the hole width. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Park to have wherein the molding groove has a width of 0.5 to 1 time width of the metal lead.
Lilley as applied to modified Park above also teaches in Fig. 4 that the molding groove (formed between sides of jig 16 and on clamping portion 12) appears to have the same width as the lead held therein (see also Lilley Fig. 3). Therefore, ensuring the mold of modified Park had such structure would have been obvious and rendered obvious the limitation of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Park does not directly disclose wherein the method further comprises welding the lithium electrode tab and the metal lead after step (d).
However, both Lilley and Kim references applied to modified Park (above) teach toward a welding step after pressing. Kim [0044] teaches toward pressing and tack welding between the multi-tab stack to prevent defects of tabs movement, then teaches a further welding step between the tack-welded tabs and the lead ([0048-0049]). Lilley teaches welding under pressure (i.e., pressing then welding) facilitates bond formation between the metal and is advantageous in forming a strong bond over a small area ([0019-0020, 0030, 0049]), further teaching clamping portions (e.g. pressing mold as cited above to Lilley Fig. 4) and jig structure are beneficial to position and support the to-be-welded pieces of electrode tab and lead ([0022-0023]). Lilley further teaches such additional welding step beneficially creating a lithium to lithium weld between electrode tabs in addition to a weld between lithium and the end portion of the contact lead ([0031, 0041, 0049]).
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Park with the additional welding step after pressing in the molding jig as taught by Kim and especially Lilley with the motivation of achieving the a strong bond between the electrode tab(s) and the contact lead.
Thus, the instant claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Park does not directly disclose wherein the method further comprises applying a release agent to the molding groove or covering the molding groove with a release film before step (b). However, Park discloses wherein a release film can be placed between the lithium and the jig frame ([0028]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Park to have wherein the method further comprises applying a release agent to the molding groove or covering the molding groove with a release film before step (b), motivated to achieve release between the groove and the electrode tab / lead.
Further, Kim as applied to modified Park shows in Figs. 2-4 that the molding groove 22a is configured to be pressed against the tabs 11 then released therefrom. Lilley, as also applied above, similarly shows such process in Fig. 4 of pressing then releasing. Therefore, including the release film of Park [0028] would be obvious to ensure proper release between the mold and the pressed workpieces, such that the claim 6 limitation is rendered obvious.
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
