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
In response to the amendment received on July 17, 2025 and Applicant’s request for clarification received August 25, 2025 (noting that the previous Office Action inadvertently omitted new claims 21-23), the previous office action dated July 23, 2025 has been withdrawn and a new office action follows below:
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13 and 15-23 are pending. Claims 3, 10 and 14 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request;
The specification objection is withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The prior art rejections of record are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 23 does not terminate with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-6, 11-12, 17-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electrode tab" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 has been amended to recite “at least one electrode tab”. This phrase “at least one electrode tab” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis for the term the electrode tab” of claim 2 as it is unclear which electrode tab(s) the term “the electrode tab” claim 2 is referencing when plural electrode tabs are present as now encompassed by claim 1. Claims 4 and 5 are dependent upon claim 2 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 4-5 are rejected for at least this same reason.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the electrode tab" (two iterations) in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 has been amended to recite “at least one electrode tab”. This phrase “at least one electrode tab” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis for the term the electrode tab” of claim 6 as it is unclear which electrode tab(s) the term “the electrode tab” claim 6 is referencing when plural electrode tabs are present as now encompassed by claim 1.
Claim 12 is indefinite as it is dependent upon canceled claim 10.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the electrode tab" in line 2 (two iterations). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 has been amended to recite “at least one electrode tab”. This phrase “at least one electrode tab” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis for the term the electrode tab” of claim 17 as it is unclear which electrode tab(s) the term “the electrode tab” claim 17 is referencing when plural electrode tabs are present as now encompassed by claim 1. Claims 11 and 18 are dependent upon claim 17 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 11 and 18 are rejected for at least this same reason.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the electrode tab" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 has been amended to recite “at least one electrode tab”. This phrase “at least one electrode tab” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis for the term the electrode tab” of claim 23 as it is unclear which electrode tab(s) the term “the electrode tab” claim 23 is referencing when plural electrode tabs are present as now encompassed by claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 1 (as canceled claim 10 was dependent upon claim 1 and claim 12 was and still is dependent upon claim 10) for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0248029).
As to claim 1, Butt discloses a method for manufacturing a battery module, comprising:
preparing a plurality of battery cells 30/300 and at least one bus bar 700,
each of the plurality of battery cells including at least one electrode tab 771 and each bus bar including a plurality of holes;
inserting the electrode tabs 771 into each of the holes; and
welding the electrode tabs 771 to the bus bar 700 by applying a laser 730/733 to the electrode tabs protruding from the corresponding holes of the bus bar (Figs. 25-26).
As to claim 19, the method includes welding the electrode tabs 771 to the bus bar 700 using a laser 730 and laser beam 733 applied obliquely with respect to a central axis of each electrode tab 771 (Figs. 25-26).
As to claim 20, subjecting the tabs to the laser 730 and laser beam 733 will melt the tabs 771 via the laser 730 and laser beam 733 to electrically connect the tabs 771 to the bus bar 700 (Figs. 25-26).
Claims 1, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchiyama et al. (JP2012-252811A).
Copies of references cited by applicant in accordance with MPEP § 609, § 707.05(b) and § 708.02 are not furnished to applicant with the Office action. Additionally, copies of references cited in continuation applications if they had been previously cited in the parent application are not furnished.
As to claim 1, Uchiyama discloses a battery module (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of battery cells 1 each including at least one electrode tab 3/7; and a bus bar 2 connected to the electrode tabs 3/7 to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells 1to each other, the bus bar 2 having a plate in which a plurality of holes 4 are formed; wherein the electrode tabs 3/7 include. According to Uchiyama each of the electrode tabs 3/7 are inserted into corresponding holes 4 of the bus bar 2 and welded at the corresponding hole so that the bus bar 2 is fixedly coupled to the electrode tabs 3/7 (Figs. 1-21). As to claim 1, Uchiyama teaches of welding the bus bar plate and tabs via welding, including laser welding (see pages 7 and 9 of the machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
399
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
250
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
179
217
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, The bus bar includes a plate 7 with two holes placed at predetermined intervals to effectively receive the electrode tabs (Figs. 2, 9 and 17 for example).
As to claims 15 and 16, Uchiyama teaches of the bus bar plates including protruding portions which taper outward from the inner surface corresponding electrode tab 3/7 (Figs. 5, 6, 9, 13, 17 and 18).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaka et al. (JP 2005-327677A) in view of Walter et al. (“Nothing Less Than More Affordable Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
Copies of references cited by applicant in accordance with MPEP § 609, § 707.05(b) and § 708.02 are not furnished to applicant with the Office action. Additionally, copies of references cited in continuation applications if they had been previously cited in the parent application are not furnished.
As to claim 1, Matsuzaka discloses a battery module (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of battery cells A-F each including at least one electrode tab 5, 6; and a bus bar 7 connected to the electrode tabs 5, 6 to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells A-F to each other, the bus bar 7 having a plate in which a plurality of holes 5a and 6a are formed; wherein the electrode tabs 5 and 6 include. According to Matsuzaka each of the electrode tabs 5 are inserted into corresponding holes of the bus bar 7 and welded at the corresponding hole so that the bus bar 7 is fixedly coupled to the electrode tabs 5 (Figs. 1-9).
As to claim 2, the electrode tabs 5 and 6 include: a bending portion; a straight portion extending from the bending portion, the straight portion being inserted into the plurality of holes 5a, 6a and bonded at the plurality of holes so that the bus bar 7 is fixedly coupled to the electrode tabs 5 and 6 (Figs. 1-7).
PNG
media_image6.png
553
916
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, The bus bar includes a plate 7 with two holes placed at predetermined intervals to effectively receive the electrode tabs (Figs. 1 and 8-9 for example).
As to claim 17, the electrode tabs 5 and 6 include: a bending portion; a straight portion extending from the bending portion, the straight portion being inserted into the plurality of holes 5a, 6a and bonded at the plurality of holes so that the bus bar 7 is fixedly coupled to the electrode tabs 5 and 6 (Figs. 1-7).
PNG
media_image6.png
553
916
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, at least one tab is chamfered (Figs. 9 and 11) noting that the chamfered tab is only a temporary design, effectively no longer present after welding.
As to claim 11, the straight portion noted above extends from the bent portion and the straight portion is inserted into a corresponding hole of the bus bar and the straight portion is then welded to the bus bar.
As to claim 18, the bent portion is located below the bus bar and the straight portion is upper the holes of the bus bar, where the weld is applied to the straight portion.
Matsuzaka does not teach of the weld being a laser weld (claim 1), further a wobble weld (Claim 12).
With respect to claims 1 and 12: Wobble welding techniques were previously known in the art as a means for welding batteries to corresponding bus bars. Walter teaches of a laser welding process which forms a wobble weld for connecting batteries to a bus bar (Figs. 1, 2 and 5). Walter recognized that wobble (circle-shaped wobble geometry) welds provide stable, precise welds with high weld flexibility implementation, provides homogeneous weld seams both in terms of function and aesthetics and provides welds having improved weld strength. The process was further recognized as a cost-effective process for welding batteries.
Fig. 1 of Walter (a copy provided below) shows the same general wobble weld geometry as in the instant application.
PNG
media_image7.png
550
708
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the tab to busbar connections of Matsuzaka to employ wobble weld designs as taught by Walter since such a weld was known in the art to have provided stable, precise welds with high weld flexibility implementation, provided homogeneous weld seams both in terms of function and aesthetics and provided welds having improved weld strength. The process was further recognized as a cost-effective process for welding batteries.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaka et al. (JP 2005-327677A) in view of Walter et al. (“Nothing Less Than More Affordable Lithium-Ion Batteries”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0331097).
As to claim 5, the bent portion includes an outer surface and inner surface (front and rear surfaces, relative to each other) and one surface is concave and the other is convex.
As to claim 4, Matsuzaka does not teach providing insulation on a portion of the electrode tabs, notably on the bending portion of the electrode tabs.
The bent portion of the tabs of Matsuzaka are provided between the battery and the region where the tabs are electrically connected to a corresponding bus bar. Modifying the intermediate interior portions of the electrode tabs with insulation would have provided the predictable result of insulating the electrical pathway between a battery and bus bar, thus decreasing the susceptibility to electrical shorting by protecting the internal electrical pathways with insulation. Lee teaches that a the portion of the lead/tab extending from a battery core is insulated or protected within the battery housing, thereby providing a predictable degree of insulation and protection from unwarranted internal electrical contact with the internal portion of the lead/tab (Fig. 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the tabs of Matsuzaka to include electrical insulation on the exterior of the tabs/leads of Matsuzaka, including thus the bent portion of this part in Matsuzaka since it would have provided a predictable degree of insulation and protection from unwarranted internal electrical contact with the internal portion of the lead/tab and prevented electrical shorting from occurring along the interior tab/lead pathway of Matsuzaka.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0248029) as applied to claim “1” above, and further in view of Walter et al. (“Nothing Less Than More Affordable Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
Butt does not teach of the weld being laser weld being a wobble weld (claim 12).
Wobble welding techniques were previously known in the art as a means for welding batteries to corresponding bus bars. Walter teaches of a laser welding process which forms a wobble weld for connecting batteries to a bus bar (Figs. 1, 2 and 5). Walter recognized that wobble (circle-shaped wobble geometry) welds provide stable, precise welds with high weld flexibility implementation, provides homogeneous weld seams both in terms of function and aesthetics and provides welds having improved weld strength. The process was further recognized as a cost-effective process for welding batteries.
Fig. 1 of Walter (a copy provided below) shows the same general wobble weld geometry as in the instant application.
PNG
media_image7.png
550
708
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the tab to busbar connections of Butt to employ wobble weld designs as taught by Walter since such a weld was known in the art to have provided stable, precise welds with high weld flexibility implementation, provided homogeneous weld seams both in terms of function and aesthetics and provided welds having improved weld strength. The process was further recognized as a cost-effective process for welding batteries.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al. (JP2012-252811A) as applied to claim “1” above, and further in view of Walter et al. (“Nothing Less Than More Affordable Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
Uchiyama does not teach of the weld being laser weld being a wobble weld (claim 12).
Wobble welding techniques were previously known in the art as a means for welding batteries to corresponding bus bars. Walter teaches of a laser welding process which forms a wobble weld for connecting batteries to a bus bar (Figs. 1, 2 and 5). Walter recognized that wobble (circle-shaped wobble geometry) welds provide stable, precise welds with high weld flexibility implementation, provides homogeneous weld seams both in terms of function and aesthetics and provides welds having improved weld strength. The process was further recognized as a cost-effective process for welding batteries.
Fig. 1 of Walter (a copy provided below) shows the same general wobble weld geometry as in the instant application.
PNG
media_image7.png
550
708
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the tab to busbar connections of Uchiyama to employ wobble weld designs as taught by Walter since such a weld was known in the art to have provided stable, precise welds with high weld flexibility implementation, provided homogeneous weld seams both in terms of function and aesthetics and provided welds having improved weld strength. The process was further recognized as a cost-effective process for welding batteries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: see item 12 of the previous Office Action, incorporated herein.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 21-23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the method of at least claims 21 (noting that claims 22-23 are further dependent upon claim 21 and allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 21) wherein the bus bar assembly includes the bus bar, a support plate and a fixing plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-13 and 15-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725