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 § 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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilley et al. (US 20150056506 A1), hereinafter Lilley, in view of Yang et al. (US 20130344379 A1), hereinafter Yang, in further view of Hwang et al. (US 20160141594 A1), hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 1, Lilley teaches:
a battery cell (Abstract);
an electrode tab drawn out from the battery cell in a first direction (Abstract, Fig. 1, tab 2);
a connection tab overlapping the electrode tab and bonded to the electrode tab ([0012], tab 2).
Lilley fails to teach:
a battery pack, comprising:
a soldering material bonding the electrode tab and the connection tab to each other;
the connection tab includes a first metal material and the electrode tab includes second metal material;
the first metal material having an affinity to the soldering material that is different from an affinity of the second metal material to the soldering material;
the soldering material forms a soldering bridge that has two ends respectively corresponding to a first thermal bonding point and a second thermal bonding point to a portion of the connection tab exposed by the electrode tab;
the soldering bridge connects the first and second thermal bonding points to each other and extends across a portion of the electrode tab between the first and second thermal bonding points.
Yang teaches:
a battery cell ([0022]);
a soldering material bonding the electrode tab and the connection tab to each other (Abstract);
the connection tab includes a first metal material and the electrode tab includes second metal material (Abstract);
the first metal material having an affinity to the soldering material that is different from an affinity of the second metal material to the soldering material (Abstract, [0065]);
the soldering material forms a soldering bridge that has two ends respectively corresponding to a first thermal bonding point and a second thermal bonding point to a portion of the connection tab exposed by the electrode tab ([0028]);
the soldering bridge connects the first and second thermal bonding points to each other and extends across a portion of the electrode tab between the first and second thermal bonding points ([0028]).
Hwang teaches a battery pack ([0001]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the battery cell connection structure of Lilley to incorporate the soldered tab connection of Yang, and to further incorporate the battery cell into a battery pack as taught by Hwang. The motivation to combine would be to improve the reliability and mechanical strength of the electrical connection between the electrode tab and the connection tab while providing a manufacturable soldered joint and incorporating the battery cell into a battery pack suitable for practical use. Such a combination merely applies known techniques to improve electrical connectivity and packaging of battery cells and would have yielded predictable results.
Furthermore, because Yang teaches that the connection tab and electrode tab are formed from different metal materials, it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the different materials exhibit different affinities to the soldering materials as they possess different bonding characteristics with solder compositions.
Regarding claim 2, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lilley fails to teach the affinity of the first metal material to the soldering material is higher than the affinity of the second metal material to the soldering material.
Yang teaches the affinity of the first metal material to the soldering material is higher than the affinity of the second metal material to the soldering material ([0065]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to choose different materials with different affinities in order to improve solder wettability, facilitate formation of a reliable solder joint, and enhance the mechanical and electrical integrity of the tab connection. Because Yang teaches that the connection tab and electrode tab are formed from different metal materials, it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the different materials exhibit different affinities to the soldering materials as they possess different bonding characteristics with solder compositions.
Regarding claim 3, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the electrode tab includes openings ([0032], [0042-0046]):
The openings being adjacent to each other ([0032], [0042-0046]);
The first and second thermal bonding points pass through the openings in the electrode tab ([0032], [0042-0046]);
Portion of the electrode tab includes a solid section between adjacent ones of the openings ([0032], [0042-0046]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the plurality of adjacent openings as taught by Lilley to improve the mechanical interlock and electrical connection between the electrode tab and the connection tab by allowing the tab material to penetrate through the opening, thereby producing a stronger and more reliable bonded joint while maintaining structural integrity. Such modification would have amounted to nothing more than the substitution of one known tab configuration for another to obtain predictable results as well as a design choice that is common in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab with through-holes ([0032], [0042-0046]). Lilley fails to teach:
The first thermal bonding point passes through the opening in the electrode tab;
The second thermal bonding point is outside of the electrode tab with respect to a contour line surrounding an outermost portion of the electrode tab;
Portion of the electrode tab includes a solid section between the opening in the electrode tab and the contour line of the electrode tab.
Yang teaches using a soldering material that form thermal bonding points and a soldering bridge ([0063-0064], [0071]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Lilley’s electrode tab having the through -hole by incorporating the soldering bridge and thermal bonding points taught by Yang such that the first thermal bonding point is formed through the opening in the electrode tab and the second thermal bonding point is formed outside the contour line of the electrode tab, with the soldering bridge extending across the solid section between the opening and the contour line. The motivation to combine would have been to improve the mechanical and electrical integrity of the tab connection by allowing the soldering material to mechanically interlock through the opening while providing and additional bonding point on the exposed portion of the connection tab, thereby increasing bond strength and electrical conductivity.
Furthermore, applying Yang’s soldering bridge configuration to Lilley’s electrode tab having a through-hole merely applies a known soldering technique to a known tab structure to achieve the predictable result of an improved soldered connection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the thermal bonding points of Yang would naturally be positioned to utilize the opening of Lilley as a bonding location while forming another bonding point on the exposed connection tab. Such a modification represent the use of known elements according to their established functions and would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the electrode tab includes at least one opening through which the connection tab is exposed ([0032], [0042-0046]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the plurality of adjacent openings as taught by Lilley to improve the mechanical interlock and electrical connection between the electrode tab and the connection tab by allowing the tab material to penetrate through the opening, thereby producing a stronger and more reliable bonded joint while maintaining structural integrity. Such modification would have amounted to nothing more than the substitution of one known tab configuration for another to obtain predictable results as well as a design choice that is common in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the electrode tab includes ([0032], [0042-0046]):
A plurality of openings spaced apart from each other ([0032], [0042-0046]).
Lilley fails to teach:
The soldering material forms a thermal bonding point with the connection tab at each of the plurality of openings and forms a plurality of soldering bridges continuously connected to each other;
Each of the soldering bridges connects the thermal bonding points, which are spaced apart from each other, to each other while crossing a solid section of the electrode tab formed between the openings adjacent to each other.
Yang teaches:
The soldering material forms a thermal bonding point with the connection tab at each of the plurality of openings and forms a plurality of soldering bridges continuously connected to each other ([0063-0064], [0071]);
Each of the soldering bridges connects the thermal bonding points, which are spaced apart from each other, to each other while crossing a solid section of the electrode tab formed between the openings adjacent to each other ([0063-0064], [0071]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to form the soldering bridges of Yang through the plurality of spaced-apart openings taught by Lilley such that the soldering material forms thermal bonding points at the openings. The motivation to combine would have been to improve the mechanical strength and electrical reliability of the connection by promoting solder flow through the opening while creating continuous solder bridges thereby producing a more robust and reliable electrical joint.
The modification would have involved nothing more than applying the known solder bridge configuration taught by Yang to the known electrode tab having a plurality of spaced-apart openings taught by Lilley to obtain the predictable result of a stronger and more reliable electrical and mechanical connection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the soldering bridges of Yang would naturally cooperate with the openings of Lilley by forming bonding points at the openings while extending across the solid sections between adjacent openings. Such a combination merely substitutes one known bonding configuration for another known bonding configuration and applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding no more than predictable results. Accordingly, the modification would have been a routine design choice and well within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the electrode tab includes a plurality of openings arranged in a second direction crossing the first direction ([0032], [0042-0046]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the plurality of adjacent openings as taught by Lilley to improve the mechanical interlock and electrical connection between the electrode tab and the connection tab by allowing the tab material to penetrate through the opening, thereby producing a stronger and more reliable bonded joint while maintaining structural integrity. Such modification would have amounted to nothing more than the substitution of one known tab configuration for another to obtain predictable results as well as a design choice that is common in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 7, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the plurality of openings are in a plurality of columns arranged in the first direction, and the openings in each of the columns are aligned in the second direction ([0032], [0042-0046]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the plurality of adjacent openings as taught by Lilley to improve the mechanical interlock and electrical connection between the electrode tab and the connection tab by allowing the tab material to penetrate through the opening, thereby producing a stronger and more reliable bonded joint while maintaining structural integrity. Such modification would have amounted to nothing more than the substitution of one known tab configuration for another to obtain predictable results as well as a design choice that is common in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the electrode tab includes a plurality of openings each having a uniform unit shape ([0032], [0042-0046], Fig. 2).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the plurality of adjacent openings as taught by Lilley to improve the mechanical interlock and electrical connection between the electrode tab and the connection tab by allowing the tab material to penetrate through the opening, thereby producing a stronger and more reliable bonded joint while maintaining structural integrity. Such modification would have amounted to nothing more than the substitution of one known tab configuration for another to obtain predictable results as well as a design choice that is common in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the electrode tab exposes the connection tab outside of the electrode tab with respect to a contour line surrounding an outermost portion of the electrode tab (Abstract, Fig. 1, tab 2).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the exposed portion of the connection tab outside the contour of the electrode tab as taught by Lilley in order to provide an exposed region of the connection tab that facilitates formation of the soldered joint, improves access for the bonding process, and enhances the mechanical and electrical connection between the overlapping tabs.
Furthermore, configuring the connection tab to extend beyond the contour of the electrode tab would have been nothing more than selecting a known relative tab geometry for its intended purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that varying the extent to which the connection tab is exposed is a matter of routine optimization and design choice, yielding the predictable result of providing an accessible bonding region while maintaining the electrical connection.
Regarding claim 11, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 10, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the contour line defining the outside of the electrode tab exposing the connection tab includes (Abstract, Fig. 1, tab 2):
An end line at an edge of the electrode tab in the first direction (Abstract, Fig. 1, tab 2);
A pair of side lines respectively extending from two ends of the end line and facing each other (Abstract, Fig. 1, tab 2).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include the contour line configuration illustrated by Lilley. The motivation to combine would have been to define the geometry of the electrode tab so as to provide an exposed region of the connection tab for solder bonding while maintaining sufficient overlap for a secure electrical and mechanical connection.
Furthermore, selecting the particular contour geometry, would have been a matter of routine engineering design and optimization. Such a modification merely employs a known tab configuration to achieve the predictable result of facilitating tab alignment and solder bonding and would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 10, as stated above. Lilley teaches an electrode tab having a contour line defining the outer perimeter of the electrode tab (Abstract, Fig. 1, tab 2). Lilley fails to teach that the contour line includes a region recessed inwardly toward the inside of the electrode tab.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the contour line of Lilley’s electrode tab to include a region recess inwardly. The motivation to make this modification would have been to provide a desired exposed portion of the connection tab for solder bonding while maintaining sufficient overlap and structural integrity of the electrode tab.
Furthermore, the inclusion and shape of a recessed contour region would have been a matter of routine engineering optimization and design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the contour of the electrode tab merely changes the geometry of the exposed bonding region without changing the fundamental operation of the tab assembly, yielding the predictable result of facilitating solder bonding while maintaining a reliable mechanical and electrical connection.
Regarding claim 13, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 12, as stated above. Lilley teaches an electrode tab having a contour line including an end line an opposing side lines defining the outer perimeter of the electrode tab (Abstract, Fig. 1, tab 2). However, Lilley does not explicitly teach that the pair of side lines are recessed inwardly toward the inside of the electrode tab.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the contour line of Lilley’s electrode tab such that the opposing side lines are recessed inwardly toward the inside of the electrode tab while maintaining the straight end line connecting the side lines to tailor the exposed bonding area of the connection tab while maintaining sufficient overlap and structural integrity for the soldered joint.
Furthermore, the particular degree and shape of the recessed side lines constitute a matter of routine engineering optimization and design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that varying the contour of the side edges merely changes the geometry of the exposed bonding region without altering the fundamental operation of the electrode tab assembly, yielding the predictable result of providing a desired bonding area while maintaining the intended electrical and mechanical connection.
Regarding claim 14, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 12, as stated above. Lilley further teaches the electrode tab includes ([0032], Fig. 2):
A plurality of openings each having a uniform circular unit shape inside the electrode tab ([0032], Fig. 2);
A contour line recessed concavely toward the inside of the electrode tab ([0032], Fig. 2);
The plurality of openings and the contour line recessed concavely inwardly have a same curvature ([0032], Fig. 2).
Lilley fails to teach a battery pack. Hwang teaches a battery pack as stated above in claim 1 ([0001]).
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the combination of Lilley, Yang, and Hwang from claim 1, to include the contour line of Lilley’s electrode tab such that the opposing side lines are recessed inwardly toward the inside of the electrode tab while maintaining the straight end line connecting the side lines to tailor the exposed bonding area of the connection tab while maintaining sufficient overlap and structural integrity for the soldered joint.
Furthermore, the particular degree and shape of the recessed side lines constitute a matter of routine engineering optimization and design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that varying the contour of the side edges merely changes the geometry of the exposed bonding region without altering the fundamental operation of the electrode tab assembly, yielding the predictable result of providing a desired bonding area while maintaining the intended electrical and mechanical connection.
Regarding claim 15, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 14, as stated above. Lilley further teaches a plurality of openings that are evenly spaced from one another ([0032], Fig. 2). However, Lilley does not explicitly teach that the distance between the opening on the outermost side of the electrode tab and contour line recessed inwardly is equal to the distance between adjacent openings, since Lilley does not expressly disclose the recessed contour line.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the tab such that the recessed contour line is positioned from the outermost opening by a distance equal to the spacing between the adjacent openings in order to provide a uniform electrode tab geometry that promotes consistent stress distribution while maintaining an adequate exposed bonding region.
Furthermore, selecting the relative spacing between the outermost opening and the recessed contour line would have been a matter of routine engineering optimization and design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that matching this spacing to the spacing between adjacent openings merely standardizes the tab geometry without changing the fundamental operation of the electrode tab assembly, yielding the predictable result of a more uniform and manufacturable bonding structure.
Regarding claim 16, Lilley, Yang, and Hwang teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Lilley further teaches a battery cell including an electrode tab overlapping a connection tab and teaches joining the overlapping tabs using a welded bonding region (welding block) surrounding the overlapping portions of the electrode tab and the connection tab ([0076], Fig. 1-3). However, Lilley does not explicitly teach that the bonding region is a soldering block formed from soldering material surrounding the stack of the electrode tab and the connection tab. Specifically, Lilley does not teach the soldering material forms a soldering block that surrounds a stack of the electrode tab and the connection tab.
Yang teaches bonding an electrode tab and a connection tab using a soldering material wherein the soldering material forms a soldered bonding region surrounding the overlapping portions of the tabs and provides both a mechanical and electrical connection between the tabs.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the welded bonding region of Lilley by substituting the solder bonding technique taught by Yang such that the soldering material forms a soldering block surrounding the stack of the electrode tab and the connection tab. The motivation to combine would have been to employ a known alternative joining technique capable of producing a reliable electrical and mechanical connection while improving manufacturability, accommodating dissimilar metals, and providing a robust conductive joint.
Furthermore, replacing Lilley’s welded bonding region with Yang’s soldering material would have amounted to nothing more than the substitution of one well-known joining technique for another used to perform the same function of electrically and mechanically joining overlapping battery tabs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected either welding or soldering to provide a secure conductive connection depending on the desired manufacturing process and material selection. Such substitutions were common in the battery manufacturing art and merely apply a known technique to a known device, yielding no more than the predictable result of a securely bonded electrode tab and connection tab.
Regarding claim 17, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab overlapping a connection tab within a welded bonding region (welding block) ([0076], Fig. 1-3). However, Lilley does not explicitly teach the bonding region is a soldering block. Specifically, Lilley fails to teach inside the soldering block, a solid area of the electrode tab is less than a solid area of the connection tab. Yang teaches bonding the overlapping tabs using a soldering material.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to configure the overlapping tabs such that the solid area of the electrode tab within the soldering block is less than the solid area of the connection tab. The motivation to combine would have been to provide sufficient exposed connection tab area for solder bonding while maintaining adequate overlap between the tabs to achieve a reliable mechanical and electrical connection.
Additionally, selecting the relative solid areas of the overlapping tabs would have been a matter of routine engineering optimization and design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely adjusted the dimensions of the tabs to accommodate the desired bonding region while achieving predictable manufacturing and structural performance.
Regarding claim 18, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab overlapping a connection tab within a welded bonding region (welding block) ([0076], Fig. 1-3). However, Lilley does not explicitly teach the bonding region is a soldering block. Specifically, Lilley fails to teach inside the soldering block, an enclosed area of the electrode tab surrounded by a contour line on the outermost side of the electrode tab is smaller than an enclosed area of the connection tab surrounded by a contour line on the outermost side of the connection tab.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to configure the enclosed area of the electrode tab to be smaller than that of the connection tab. The motivation to combine would have been to provide an adequate exposed bonding surface on the connection tab while maintaining sufficient overlap to ensure a secure electrical and mechanical joint.
Additionally, selecting the relative enclosed areas of the overlapping tabs constitutes routine dimensional optimization and engineering design choice. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that varying the relative sizes of overlapping tabs is a common design consideration that predictably affects the available bonding area without altering the fundamental operation of the assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab overlapping a connection tab within a welded bonding region (welding block) and that the electrode and connection tab are stacked ([0076], Fig. 1-3). However, Lilley does not explicitly teach the bonding region is a soldering block. Specifically, Lilley fails to teach the soldering block has a thickness in a direction:
Soldering block surrounds the stack of the electrode tab
The connection tab so that the electrode tab and the connection tab are not exposed through the soldering block.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute Yang’s soldering material for Lilley’s welded bonding region such that the soldering material surrounds the stacked electrode tab and connection tab. The motivation to combine would have been to provide a continuous conductive joint that securely bonds the tabs while protecting the bonded interface and improving the mechanical integrity of the electrical connection.
Additionally, the thickness and extent of the soldering block necessary to surround the stacked tabs would have been determined through routine engineering judgment and optimization based upon the desired bonding strength, manufacturing process, and material selection, resulting in predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab stacked with a connection tab and joined within a welded bonding region ([0076], Fig. 1-3). Specifically, Lilley fails to teach:
A first portion of the soldering block, which is on the electrode tab, is thermal-bonded with regions of the connection tab that are exposed via the electrode tab;
A second portion of the soldering block, which is on the connection tab, is directly thermal-bonded with the connection tab without the electrode tab therebetween.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the solder bonding technique of Yang for the welded bonding region of Lilley such that the soldering block includes portions bonded to the exposed regions of the connection tab and directly bonded to the connection tab. The motivation to combine would have been to maximize the bonded surface area, improve electrical conductivity, and increase the mechanical reliability of the tab connection.
Furthermore, substituting soldering for welding represents the use of one known joining technique in place of another to obtain the predictable result of joining overlapping conductive tabs. The precise distribution of solder within the bonding region would have been determined through ordinary engineering judgement based on the desired bond geometry and manufacturing process, making the claimed arrangement no more than a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 21, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab stacked with a connection tab and joined within a welded bonding region ([0076], Fig. 1-3). Specifically, Lilley fails to teach:
The electrode tab exposes a portion of the connection tab in the first portion of the soldering block;
The connection tab does not expose the electrode tab in the second portion of the soldering block.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute Yang’s soldering materials for Lilley’s welded bonding region and configure the overlapping tabs such that the electrode tab exposes a portion of the connection tab in one portion of the soldering block while the connection tab remains unexposed in another portion. The motivation to combine would have been to facilitate formation of a reliable soldered joint while maintaining adequate overlap between the tabs to achieve a robust mechanical and electrical connection.
Furthermore, replacing the welded bonding region with a soldering block merely substitutes one known joining technique for another to obtain predictable results. The particular geometry of the exposed and unexposed portions of the overlapping tabs would have been selected through routine engineering optimization and design choice based on the desired bonding area and manufacturing considerations, without changing the fundamental operation of the battery tab assembly.
Regarding claim 22, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab stacked with a connection tab and joined within a welded bonding region ([0076], Fig. 1-3). Specifically, Lilley fails to teach an opening of the connection tab is at a position spaced apart from the electrode tab outside the electrode tab so that the electrode tab is not exposed via the opening of the connection tab.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the soldering material taught by Yang for the welded bonding region of Lilley and to position an opening of the connection tab outside the electrode tab such that the electrode tab is not exposed through the opening. The motivation to combine would have been to provide an appropriate bonding geometry while maintaining sufficient structural integrity and ensuring a reliable electrical and mechanical connection.
Furthermore, replacing the welded bonding region with a soldering block merely substitutes one known joining technique for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally, the placement of an opening in the connection tab relative to the electrode tab would have been a matter of routine engineering optimization and design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely selected the location of such an opening based upon the desired bonding area, manufacturability, and mechanical strength, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Lilley and Yang teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above. Lilley further teaches an electrode tab stacked with a connection tab and joined within a welded bonding region ([0076], Fig. 1-3). Specifically, Lilley fails to teach a thickness of the first portion of the soldering block is greater than a thickness of the second portion of the soldering block in a direction in which the electrode tab and the connection tab are stacked.
Lilley, Yang, and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries, namely electrode tab connection structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the soldering material taught by Yang for the welded bonding region of Lilley and to configure the soldering block such that the first portion has a greater thickness than the second portion. The motivation to combine would have been to tailor the amount of solder material at different portions of the joint in order to provide adequate bonding strength, improve electrical conductivity, and accommodate the geometry of the overlapping tabs.
Furthermore, replacing the welded bonding region with a soldering block merely substitutes one known joining technique for another to obtain predictable results. The relative thickness of different portions of the soldering block would have been determined through routine engineering judgement based upon the desired mechanical strength, electrical performance, solder flow characteristics, and manufacturing considerations. Accordingly, selecting the thickness of one portion relative to another would have constituted a matter of routine optimization and engineering design choice, resulting in predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights