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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 10-2022-0149372, filed on 2022-11-10.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR20210061945A) in view of Kushida et al. (Pub No. US 2001/0030004 A1) using the applicant provided original document and cited translation.
9. Regarding claims 1, 2, and 8 Jin et al. teaches:
A secondary battery module comprising:
A plurality of battery cells including electrode tab ([0009, Fig 2: 110,120])
and a bus bar connected to the plurality of battery cells are electrically connected to each other ([0009, Fig 2 and Fig 4: 120, 150])
wherein the bus bar includes a plate having a plurality of holes ([0009, Fig 3: 150c, 150a])
therein, each of the electrode tabs of the plurality of battery cells is inserted into at least a part of the plurality of holes of the plate, the electrode tab inserted into the hole and the plate are joined to each other by a weld bead, one or more of the weld beads are included ([0009 Fig 9 -170, 150c, 150a]).
Jin et al. does not explicitly teach:
and the weld bead has a concentration deviation (△C) satisfying the following Equation 1: [Equation 1] Concentration deviation (△C) < 5 wt.% wherein the concentration deviation (△C) refers to a difference between an average copper concentration (C1) of a left side and an average copper concentration (C2) of a right side based on a center line of the hole in a section of the weld bead in a thickness direction of the plate.
And
wherein the weld bead satisfies the concentration deviation (△C) of 3 wt. % or less.
And,
wherein the weld bead has a copper concentration of 40 wt. % or less
However, Kushida et al., in a similar field of endeavor, welding of dissimilar metals, teaches:
“As regards to the weld metal, when the Cu content exceed 3%the weld hot cracking resistance decreases” ([0084])
“A desirable range of the copper content is 1-3%” ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a low copper content material for welding such as taught by Kushida et al., in the battery of Jin et al. to maintain hot cracking resistance. When the copper content itself is less than 3%, the concentration deviation of copper will be less than 5% and 3% and the overall copper concentration will be below 40 wt. % respectively.
10. Regarding Claim 4, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends upon. Jin et al. further teaches:
a. wherein the weld bead is a weld bead having symmetry and is bilaterally
symmetrical about the center line of the hole in the section of the weld bead in the thickness direction of the plate ([0098, Fig 9])
11. Regarding Claim 5, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1. While Jin et al. is silent on the specific formula used in the claim, they teach that the “weld bead can be left-right symmetrical with respect to centerline (CL) of the hole where left-right symmetry can mean that the shortest distance between the two left-right boundary points and the center line of the hole is L1 and L2, and the longer length when L1 and L2 are different is L2 so that the ratio of L1 and L2 is 1 to 1.2” ([0098, fig 9]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that for an object to be symmetrical as Jin et al., teaches, the ratio between pairs of measurements has to be approximately 1 by definition. Therefore, it would have been be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to come to the conclusion of allowable range to achieve left-right symmetry between lies within or overlaps the claimed ranges for any measurements.
Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
12. Regarding Claim 6, Jin et al. further teaches:
a. wherein the weld bead includes a cover portion having a convex shape which covers the hole; and a pillar portion loaded into the hole in the section of the weld bead in the thickness direction of the plate ([0100], [0034], Fig 9- 150c and 170).
13. Regarding Claim 7, the combination as applied above teaches the limitation of claim 1, which claim 7 depends upon. Jin et al. further teaches:
a. wherein the electrode tab is made of aluminum and plate is made of copper ([0029]).
14. Regarding Claim 9, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends upon. Jin et al. further teaches:
a. wherein the weld bead has a dilution rate of the plate of 40% or less. ([0100] “it is more advantageous to manufacture a weld bead with a plate dilution rate of 11% or less”).
15. Regarding Claim 10, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 10 depends upon. Jin et al. further teaches:
a. wherein the battery cell is a pouch type battery cell ([0040]).
16. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR20210061945A) in view of Kushida et al. (Pub No. US 2001/0030004 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Yao et al., Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 2009].
Regarding claim 3, Jin et al., in view of Kushida et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1 on which claim 3 depends. However, it is silent on:
wherein the concentration deviation is measured by scanning electron microscope (SEM)- energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic (EDS) analysis.
Yao et al., teaches us techniques of optical microscopy (OM) such as Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) equipped with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) to “characterize microstructure and the element distribution of the laser weld. ([Section 3- Results and Discussions, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and Fig. 8]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use these well-known techniques to measure the concentration deviation of copper in the beads.
It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Zhang (US20190099288).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAURAV K JHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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.
19. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L. Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
20. 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. Visithttps://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.
/S.K.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights