DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the word “focused” is misspelled;
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "a busbar component" should be changed to "the busbar component" as antecedent basis has been established in claim 1 “one or more busbar components”; the claim language lacks proper antecedent basis for the phrase "the busbar assembly"; and the phrase "a plurality of tabs" should be changed to "the plurality of tabs" as antecedent basis has been established in claim 1;
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 5 and 13-19 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" is exemplary language and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, It is unclear if the phrase "a plurality of cylindrical cells" refers to and is an attempt to limit “a plurality of cells” present in claim 12, or if a new plurality of cells that is specifically cylindrical in shape is being introduced as part of the battery module connected to the busbar component, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, it is the examiner’s interpretation that “a plurality of cylindrical cells” refers to the same “a plurality of cells” present in claim 12. As such, the phrase "a plurality of cylindrical cells" should be changed to "the plurality of cylindrical cells" as antecedent basis has been established in claim 12;
Claim 14-16 inherit the above deficiencies and are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claim.
Regarding claim 17 and 19, the phrase "optionally" is exemplary language and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the claim language recites “the predetermined path is a loop […], and/or wherein a weld path is a circle […], and the predetermined path has a constant curvature” however, the presence of “and/or” renders the claim indefinite, since it cannot be determined whether the predetermined path and the weld path are the same or different characteristics of the welding process.
Paragraph [0012] “the welding system is arranged to control the beam to oscillate about a centreline of a predetermined path to produce each weld,” seem to point to the predetermined path as a macro-movement of the laser head which is circular in shape, with each weld being a micro-movement for the laser beam that is also circular in shape oscillating along that predetermined path, however [0102] “a weld path having a centreline that corresponds to the weld shape 404, but that also includes oscillations about the centreline of the weld path” seems to refer to weld path as the macro-movement of the laser corresponding to the circular shape of 404, but also includes micro-movement oscillations along that weld path centerline to create each individual welds.
When claim 18 is read as the predetermined path is a loop with a constant curvature “and/or” the weld path is a circle in combination with paragraphs [0012] and [0102], it is unclear whether the predetermined path and the weld path are the same characteristic and therefore a “predetermined path is a loop with a constant curvature,” which is by definition a circle, becomes a redundant limitation to “the weld path is a circle”, or if the predetermined path and the weld path are different characteristics in that the predetermined path is a macro-movement that is circular in shape, and along the predetermined path are weld paths that oscillate and are circular in shape, and only one characteristic could be claimed by the recitation of “and/or”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12 and 13, a dependent claim must include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation. See MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
In the case of claim 12, it recites a method of connecting a plurality of cells to a busbar component that comprises a plurality of tabs using the method as claimed in claim 1. However, claim 1 already recites “a method of… welding a plurality of cells to a plurality of tabs of one or more busbar components.” Claim 12 merely recites the same method claimed in claim 1, therefore claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
In the case of claim 13, and in light of the Examiner’s interpretation of the “cylindrical cells” in claim 13 referring to the same “cells” claimed in claim 12 detailed in the 112(b) rejection on claim 13 above, claim 13 introduces “a plurality of cylindrical cells” without proper antecedent basis to the “a plurality of cells” mentioned in claim 12. As such, claim 13 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 12. Furthermore, a product claim depending on a method claim is improper if the product can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim. In this case, the battery module of claim 13 can be physically made by methods other than the specific sequential laser welding steps of claim 1 and claim 12, such as ultrasonic or spot welding, rendering claim 13 an improper dependent claim under MPEP 608.01(n)(III).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1 in view of Jung, US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1.
Claim 1. Newman discloses a method of high speed welding a plurality of cell terminals to a plurality of tabs of one or more busbar components, using a laser welding system comprising a welding laser arranged to emit a laser beam for welding, and (Newman, Abstract “Methods and systems for sequentially laser welding terminal tabs of a battery cell to corresponding terminal tabs of a busbar…”)
a scanning head comprising a plurality of movable mirrors arranged to direct the laser beam, the method comprising: (Newman, Fig. 3 shows a laser welding system 300 including a laser welder 304 comprising a laser 308, a focusing element 312, an aperture 316, and a power supply 320 corresponding to the claimed scanning head; and [0030] “The focusing element 312 may comprise one or more lenses, filters, mirrors, etc., configured to adjust an intensity, focal point, and/or spread of the laser beam.”)
positioning each of the plurality of tabs in contact with one or more of the plurality of cell terminals; (Newman, Fig. 3 shows first and second terminal tabs 212A and 212B of a busbar connected to the first and second terminal tabs 112A and 112B, which correspond to the claimed cell terminals, of the weldable battery cell 102.)
positioning the scanning head at a first position relative to the plurality of tabs; (Newman, Abstract “A laser welder, from a first position, generates a laser weld beam at a first diameter welding the first terminal tab of the battery cell to the first terminal tab of the busbar.”)
welding a first group of tabs to respective terminals by moving the plurality of movable mirrors to sequentially direct the laser beam of the laser welding system towards each of the tabs in the first group, to produce a first group of welds, (Newman, [0041] “… the laser weld beam 404 is shown directed toward the first set of terminal tabs 112A, 212A along the laser beam path 322 in an emission direction 324; [0042] “… a focused, or narrowed, laser weld beam 404′ configured to burn a hole through the welded first set of terminal tabs 112A, 212A and create a path through the hole to the second welding area 220B at the second set of terminal tabs 112B, 212B”; and [0030] “The focusing element 312 may comprise one or more lenses, filters, mirrors, etc., configured to adjust an intensity, focal point, and/or spread of the laser beam.”)
wherein the scanning head is held at the first position during production of the first group of welds; (Newman, Fig. 3 shows the line 322 of the laser in the first position as it makes the first group of welds in the detail area 334.)
Newman does not explicitly disclose positioning the scanning head at a second position relative to the tabs; and welding a second group of tabs to respective terminals by moving the plurality of movable mirrors to sequentially direct the laser beam of the laser welding system towards each of the tabs in the second group, to produce a second group of welds, wherein the scanning head is held at the second position during the production of the second group of welds.
Jung discloses positioning the scanning head at a second position relative to the tabs; and (Jung, Fig. 3 shows the welding head 201 being moved to a second position, depicted by the arrow.)
welding a second group of tabs to respective terminals by moving the plurality of movable mirrors to sequentially direct the laser beam of the laser welding system towards each of the tabs in the second group, to produce a second group of welds, (Jung, [0031]-[0032] “That is, according to the exemplary embodiment of the present invention, when the welding head 201 is positioned at one position, the laser beam 209 may be radiated to the plurality of predetermined welding points 211. In addition, when the welding head 201 is moved, the laser beam 209 may be radiated to a plurality of welding points 211 that are established at another position.)
wherein the scanning head is held at the second position during the production of the second group of welds. (Jung, Fig. 3 shows multiple beams applied to a plurality of welding points at the second position.)
Newman and Jung are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Newman differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose moving the laser head in order to weld at a second position. Newman’s laser welding system stays at a first position while welding two tabs of a single battery cell with a single laser beam. Jung discloses a laser welding system capable of performing a plurality of welding operations in at least one position. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the battery cell welding system of Newman with the multi-position laser welding system of Jung in order to perform multiple welding operations on multiple battery cells in more than one position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because when “the welding head performs a plurality of welding operations when the robot arm moves the welding head to a predetermined position, a working hour may be reduced, and productivity may be increased. In addition, the welding operation may be performed in various patterns since the welding head includes the driving unit” (see Jung, [0006]).
Claim 2. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
comprising measuring at least one of: a position of the first group of tabs; and a position of each respective tab within the first group of tabs and (Newman, Fig. 6 shows the method for sequentially laser welding terminal tabs of a battery cell 102 to corresponding busbar terminal tabs, particularly step 608 and 612.)
Step 608 describes positioning battery cell terminal tabs collectively with the busbar terminal tabs, which in some embodiments may be provided via an actuation system 348 (see Newman, [0048]) which may be involved with movement, indexing, alignment, positioning, and/or orientation of one or more of the components of the laser welding system 300, and may further include position-feedback devices and sensors which may perform the claimed action of measuring the position of the tabs (see Newman, [0035]), corresponding with the claimed measuring of the position of the first group of tabs. Step 612 involves aligning the terminal tabs with the laser beam path in order for the laser to create sequential welds (see Newman, [0049]), corresponding with the claimed measuring the position of the respective tabs within the first group of tabs.
adjusting a focus of the laser beam in dependence based on positions of the tabs. (Newman, [0041] “… the laser weld beam 404 is shown directed toward the first set of terminal tabs 112A, 212A along the laser beam path 322 in an emission direction 324; and [0042] “… a focused, or narrowed, laser weld beam 404′ configured to burn a hole through the welded first set of terminal tabs 112A, 212A and create a path through the hole to the second welding area 220B at the second set of terminal tabs 112B, 212B.”)
Claim 9. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each terminal is a steel terminal. (Newman, [0027] “The first busbar terminal tab 212A and the second busbar terminal tab 212B may be configured as substantially flat solid metal connectors. The flat solid metal connectors may be made from a conductive material or coating including, but in no way limited to, copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, zinc, nickel, etc., and/or combinations thereof.”)
Claim 10. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in any preceding claim 1, wherein each tab comprises copper. (Newman, [0027] “The first busbar terminal tab 212A and the second busbar terminal tab 212B may be configured as substantially flat solid metal connectors. The flat solid metal connectors may be made from a conductive material or coating including, but in no way limited to, copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, zinc, nickel, etc., and/or combinations thereof.”)
Claim 11. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each cell is a cylindrical cell. (Newman, [0021] “… the battery cell 100 may be substantially cylindrical in shape.”)
Claims 3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1 in view of Jung, US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1, in further view of Fees et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200274132 A1.
Claim 3. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and second groups of tabs are welded to at least 10 cells.
Fees discloses wherein each of the first and second groups of tabs are welded to at least 10 cells. (Fees, Fig. 11B shows three cells in a three-cell hold-down mechanism welded to contact tabs 1115B, 1120B and 1125B of busbars 1105B and 1110B; and [0056] “While FIG. 11B is described with respect to a three-cell design for the multi-cell hold-down mechanism, multi-cell hold-down mechanisms in accordance with other embodiments can include any number of cell configurations (e.g., single-cell, two-cell, four-cell, etc.).”)
Newman, Jung and Fees are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Modified Newman differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the use of the welding system to weld at least 10 cells. Fees discloses the use of multi-cell hold-down mechanisms to aid in welding the contact tabs to a plurality of grouped cells. As evidenced by Newman, the constant re-aiming and repositioning of the welder for each weld point can increase the number of welding operations and significantly slow the manufacturing process (Newman, [0014]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the welding system of modified Newman to perform multiple welding operations in one position on a group of cells in an at least 10-cell configuration taught by Fees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize the grouped cell configuration of Fees and scale the group size to at least 10 cells in order to more efficiently manufacture battery blocks containing a large number of cells at a mass scale with the laser welding system taught by modified Newman since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05 II).
Claim 12. Modified Newman discloses according to the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose a method of mechanically and electrically connecting a busbar component to a plurality of cells, wherein the busbar assembly comprises a plurality of tabs, the method comprising welding each of the tabs to one or more of the cells.
Fees discloses a method of mechanically and electrically connecting a busbar component to a plurality of cells, wherein the busbar assembly comprises a plurality of tabs, the method comprising welding each of the tabs to one or more of the cells, (Fees, Fig. 11B shows three cells in a three-cell hold-down mechanism welded to contact tabs 1115B, 1120B and 1125B of busbars 1105B and 1110B.)
Newman, Jung and Fees are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Modified Newman differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the busbar component comprising of a plurality of tabs and connected to a plurality of cells. Fees discloses a multi-cell hold-down mechanism to aid in welding a plurality of cells in a three-cell arrangement to the contacts of a busbar. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the laser welding system taught by Newman and Jung with the multi-cell hold-down mechanism taught by Fees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to efficiently weld multiple cells held in a particular arrangement against the contacts of a busbar to further decrease the excessive re-aiming and repositioning of the laser welding head as doing so would reduce the working hour and increase the productivity of the system as evidenced by Jung (see Jung, [0006]).
Claim 13. Modified Newman discloses according to the method as claimed in claim 12.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose a battery module comprising a busbar component mechanically and electrically connected to a plurality of cylindrical cells.
Fees discloses a battery module comprising a busbar component mechanically and electrically connected to a plurality of cylindrical cells (Fees, Fig. 11B shows a busbar component 1105B connected to three battery cells; and Newman, [0021] “… the battery cell 100 may be substantially cylindrical in shape.”)
Similarly to Newman, Fees Fig. 1 shows an example of the battery that is cylindrical in shape that is being welded onto the busbar assembly depicted in Fig. 11B.
Claim 14. Modified Newman discloses a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules as claimed in claim 13. (Fees, Fig. 11B shows one battery module comprising of the busbar component 1105B connected to a plurality of cylindrical cells; and Fees, Fig. 11A shows the arrangement of multiple three-cell battery modules arranged together, corresponding with the claimed battery pack.)
Claim 15. Modified Newman discloses a vehicle comprising the battery module as claimed in claim 13. (Newman, [0013] “Embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in connection with an electric power distribution system, and in some embodiments a busbar of an electric vehicle.”)
Similarly to Newman, the multi-cell hold-down battery module for a battery pack taught by Fees may be used for energy storage systems such as those found in electric vehicles (see Fees, [0003]).
Claim 16. Modified Newman discloses a vehicle comprising the battery pack as claimed in claim 14. (Newman, [0013] “Embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in connection with an electric power distribution system, and in some embodiments a busbar of an electric vehicle.”)
Similarly to Newman, the multi-cell hold-down battery module for a battery pack taught by Fees may be used for energy storage systems such as those found in electric vehicles (see Fees, [0003]).
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1 in view of Jung, US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1, in further view of Shimizu et al., WO 2019004039 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20210151837 A1.
Claim 4. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of movable mirrors are controlled by respective galvanometers.
Shimizu discloses wherein the plurality of movable mirrors are controlled by respective galvanometers. (Shimizu, [0015] “The laser beam is radiated to the galvanometer mirror 91, and the galvanometer mirror 91 is rotated by a motor (not illustrated) as a driving part in this state to rotate the laser beam radiated to the bottom of the outer case 50 one revolution around the central axis of the bottom.”)
Newman, Jung and Shimizu are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the actuation system for the mirrors of the laser welding system taught by Newman with the galvanometer controlled mirrors taught by Shimizu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification as galvanometers are one of many devices common in the art for controlling mirrors in a laser welding system and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since the applicant has not disclosed that galvanometers solves any problem or were chosen for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with galvanometer controlled mirrors.
Claim 5. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser beam has a focussed spot size on the tabs of 10-50 microns, preferably 20-40 microns.
Shimizu discloses wherein the laser beam has a focussed spot size on the tabs of 10-50 microns, preferably 20-40 microns. (Shimizu, [0050] “The laser beam emitted from a fiber laser has a very small spot diameter, such as approximately from 0.02 mm to 0.05 mm…”)
Newman, Jung and Shimizu are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spot size of the laser beam of Newman to a sufficient size such as 10-50 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the spot size, which directly affect or enhance the power density at the converging point of the laser beam to produce a sufficient weld (see Shimizu, [0050]).
Claim 7. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser welding system is arranged to control the laser beam to oscillate about a centreline of a predetermined path to produce each weld, wherein the oscillations comprise a first component in a direction parallel to the predetermined path and a second component in a direction normal to the predetermined path.
Shimizu discloses wherein the laser welding system is arranged to control the laser beam to oscillate about a centreline of a predetermined path to produce each weld, (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows welds 76, 77 and 78 with a circular weld path oscillating about a vertical centerline using a laser oscillator.)
wherein the oscillations comprise a first component in a direction parallel to the predetermined path and a second component in a direction normal to the predetermined path. (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows a circular weld path where the top portion of the circular weld is normal to the vertical centerline and the left portion is parallel to the vertical centerline.)
Newman, Jung and Shimizu are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Modified Newman differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the shape of the weld made on the workpiece, however it discloses manipulating the beam using an actuator system that may consist of mirrors. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the weld path of the actuation system of the laser welding system taught by modified Newman to oscillate about a centerline as taught by Shimizu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “enable the length of the weld form to be maximized within a small weld region… as a result, higher weld strength can be produced” (see Shimizu, [0097]).
Claim 8. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein a time taken to produce each weld is 80 milliseconds or less.
Shimizu discloses wherein a time taken to produce each weld is 80 milliseconds or less. (Shimizu, [0068] “The laser output was calculated at a constant condition of a welding speed of 470 mm/sec…”)
Newman, Jung and Shimizu are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. The laser welding system of modified Newman does not explicitly disclose the time it takes to produce each weld. However, Shimizu discloses the speed at which the welding occurs and therefore the time it takes for each weld is inherently dependent on the length being welded on the workpiece, which establishes time, path length and speed as result effective variables that may be modified in order to achieve a predictable outcome. For example, a path length of approximately 7.5mm (as exemplified by the instant specification [0105]) at a speed of 470mm/sec taught by Shimizu would produce a weld in 0.0159 seconds. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify length of the welds made by the laser welding system of modified Newman to a sufficient length in order to be able to produce a weld under 80ms at a welding speed of 470mm/sec that is taught by Shimizu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize the work time of the laser welding system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1 in view of Jung, US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1, in further view of Markushov et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101566 A1.
Claim 6. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser beam has a power of 500-1000W.
Markushov discloses wherein the laser beam has a power of 500-1000W. (Markushov, [0020] “The Ytterbium fiber laser may be a single mode or multi-mode continuous wave Ytterbium fiber laser capable of generating a laser beam with power up to 1 kW in some embodiments…”)
Newman, Jung and Markushov are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the laser used in the laser system of modified Newman with a laser capable of generating power up to 1kW as taught by Markushov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution in order to optimize the laser power used in battery manufacturing as laser power is directly correlated to the energy of the beam spot, and such a high powered laser may be capable of damaging the workpiece if the power is not adequately controlled (see Markushov, [0031]).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1 in view of Jung, US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1, in further view of Shimizu et al., WO 2019004039 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20210151837 A1, and Markushov et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101566 A1.
Claim 17. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 7.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein the oscillations have an amplitude of 0.1-0.5mm, optionally 0.2-0.4mm, and a frequency of the oscillations is 300-700 Hz.
Markushov discloses wherein the oscillations have an amplitude of 0.1-0.5mm, optionally 0.2-0.4mm, and (Markushov, [0023] “In an embodiment of the welding head 110, movable mirrors 132, 134 move the beam 118 within only a relatively small field of view (e.g., less than 30×30 mm) by pivoting the beam 118 within a scan angle α of less than 10° and more particularly about 1-2°, as shown in FIG. 2, thereby allowing the beam to wobble” where the 30x30mm field of view of the beam encompasses the claimed amplitude of 0.1-0.5mm.)
a frequency of the oscillations is 300-700 Hz. (Markushov, [0051] “… the laser energy distributions is shown for a 20 Hz wobble frequency and a 40 Hz wobble frequency to allow the user to compare the laser energy distributions at the different frequencies.”)
Newman, Jung, Shimizu and Markushov are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Modified Newman differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the oscillation parameters of the beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the oscillation amplitude and frequency of the laser system of Shimizu with the process parameters possible for a laser welding head as taught by Markushov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the working operations of the laser as “limiting the field of view and scan angle provides advantages when using galvo mirrors in the welding head 110, for example, by enabling faster speeds, allowing use with less expensive components such as lenses, and by allowing use with accessories such as air knife and/or gas assist accessories” (see Markushov, [0023]).
Claim 18. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 7.
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined path is a loop of 8-12 mm perimeter length, and/or wherein a weld path is a circle of 2-4mm diameter, and the predetermined path has a constant curvature.
wherein the predetermined path is a loop of 8-12 mm perimeter length, and/or wherein a weld path is a circle of 2-4mm diameter, and the predetermined path has a constant curvature. (Markushov, [0023] “In an embodiment of the welding head 110, movable mirrors 132, 134 move the beam 118 within only a relatively small field of view (e.g., less than 30×30 mm) by pivoting the beam 118 within a scan angle α of less than 10° and more particularly about 1-2°, as shown in FIG. 2, thereby allowing the beam to wobble” where the 30x30mm field of view of the beam encompasses the claimed circular weld path of 2-4mm diameter; and Fig. 3A shows a circular sample pattern.)
Newman, Jung, Shimizu and Markushov are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Shimizu discloses a circular weld path shown in Fig. 6, but does not explicitly disclose the parameters of the circular weld path made. Markushov discloses a similar circular weld path as the one disclosed in Shimizu. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser system circular weld path taught by Shimizu with the parameters of a circular weld path taught by Markushov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the working operations of the laser “limiting the field of view and scan angle,” which control the size and shape of the weld, “provides advantages when using galvo mirrors in the welding head 110, for example, by enabling faster speeds, allowing use with less expensive components such as lenses, and by allowing use with accessories such as air knife and/or gas assist accessories” (see Markushov, [0023]).
Claim 19. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein a weld path is an incomplete loop or circle, optionally wherein the loop has a perimeter length of 6.5-8.5mm and/or the circle or loop has a diameter of 2-4mm. (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows circular welds 76, 77 an d 78.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1 in view of Jung, US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1, in further view of Chen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20170125775 A1.
Claim 20. Modified Newman discloses the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the copper (Newman, [0027] “The first busbar terminal tab 212A and the second busbar terminal tab 212B may be configured as substantially flat solid metal connectors. The flat solid metal connectors may be made from a conductive material or coating including, but in no way limited to, copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, zinc, nickel, etc., and/or combinations thereof.”)
Modified Newman does not explicitly disclose [the copper] is plated with nickel or titanium.
Chen discloses [the copper] is plated with nickel or titanium. (Chen, [0004] “… the copper tabs and/or copper conductor may be coated with a thin layer of nickel to enhance corrosion resistance.”)
Newman, Jung and Chen are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Newman differs from the claimed invention only in that although it teaches a solid metal connector made of a conductive material, it does not explicitly disclose the tab also being coated with a conductive coating such as nickel or titanium. Chen discloses plating copper with nickel in order to resist corrosion. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the copper tabs of Newman with a nickel coating as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the selection of a known material, such as nickel, based on its art recognized suitability for its intended purpose to resist corrosion ensures the copper tabs of Newman are protected from environmental damage and maintain reliable connection over time. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19 of copending Application No. 18552855 (reference application).
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
Claim 1. A method of high speed welding a plurality of cell terminals to a plurality of tabs of one or more busbar components, using
a laser welding system comprising a welding laser arranged to emit a laser beam for welding, and
a scanning head comprising a plurality of movable mirrors arranged to direct the laser beam, the method comprising:
positioning each of the plurality of tabs in contact with one or more of the plurality of cell terminals;
positioning the scanning head at a first position relative to the plurality of tabs;
welding a first group of tabs to respective terminals by moving the plurality of movable mirrors to sequentially direct the laser beam of the laser welding system towards each of the tabs in the first group, to produce a first group of welds,
wherein the scanning head is held at the first position during production of the first group of welds;
positioning the scanning head at a second position relative to the tabs; and
welding a second group of tabs to respective terminals by moving the plurality of movable mirrors to sequentially direct the laser beam of the laser welding system towards each of the tabs in the second group, to produce a second group of welds,
wherein the scanning head is held at the second position during the production of the second group of welds.
Claim 5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a focussed spot size on the tabs of 10-50 microns, preferably 20-40 microns.
Claim 7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser welding system is arranged to control the laser beam to oscillate about a centreline of a predetermined path to produce each weld,
wherein the oscillations comprise a first component in a direction parallel to the predetermined path and a second component in a direction normal to the predetermined path.
Claim 9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each terminal is a steel terminal.
Claim 10. The method as claimed in any preceding claim 1, wherein each tab comprises copper.
Claim 11. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each cell is a cylindrical cell.
Claim 12. A method of mechanically and electrically connecting a busbar component to a plurality of cells,
wherein the busbar assembly comprises a plurality of tabs,
the method comprising welding each of the tabs to one or more of the cells, according to the method as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 13. A battery module comprising a busbar component mechanically and electrically connected to a plurality of cylindrical cells according to the method as claimed in claim 12.
Claim 14. A battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules as claimed in claim 13.
Claim 15. A vehicle comprising the battery module as claimed in claim 13.
Claim 16. A vehicle comprising the battery pack as claimed in claim 14.
Claim 17. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the oscillations have an amplitude of 0.1-0.5mm, optionally 0.2-0.4mm, and a frequency of the oscillations is 300-700 Hz.
Claim 18. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the predetermined path is a loop of 8- 12 mm perimeter length, and/or wherein a weld path is a circle of 2-4mm diameter, and the predetermined path has a constant curvature.
Claim 20. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the copper is plated with nickel or titanium.
Claim 13. The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the laser welding system comprises a scanning head comprising a plurality of movable mirrors arranged to direct the laser beam, wherein the method comprises: positioning each of the plurality of tabs in contact with one or more of the terminals;
positioning the scanning head at a first position relative to the plurality of tabs;
welding a first group of tabs to respective terminals by moving the plurality of movable mirrors to sequentially direct the laser beam of the laser welding system towards each of the tabs in the first group, to produce a first group of welds,
wherein the scanning head is held at the first position during production of the first group of welds;
positioning the scanning head at a second position relative to the tabs; and
welding a second group of tabs to respective terminals by moving the plurality of movable mirrors to sequentially direct the laser beam of the laser welding system towards each of the tabs in the second group, to produce a second group of welds,
wherein the scanning head is held at the second position during production of the second group of welds.
Claim 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a spot size on the tab of 10-50 microns, preferably 20-40 microns.
Claim 1. A method of welding a tab to a terminal of a cell using a laser welding system comprising a single-mode infra-red laser,
the method comprising: placing the tab in contact with the terminal of the cell; and
welding the tab to the terminal by controlling a laser beam generated by the laser welding system to produce a weld path comprising a predetermined shape,
wherein the laser welding system is configured to control the laser beam to oscillate about the weld path,
wherein the oscillations comprise a first component in a direction parallel to the weld path and a second component in a direction normal to the weld path.
Claim 6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the terminal is a steel terminal.
Claim 7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tab comprises copper.
Claim 8. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cell is a cylindrical cell.
Claim 12. A method of mechanically and electrically connecting a busbar component to a plurality of cells,
wherein the busbar assembly component comprises a plurality of tabs,
the method comprising welding each of the plurality of tabs to one or more of the plurality of cells, according to the method as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 14. A battery module comprising a busbar component mechanically and electrically connected to a plurality of cylindrical cells according to the method as claimed in claim 12.
Claim 15. A battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules as claimed in claim 14.
Claim 16. A vehicle comprising the battery module as claimed in claim 14.
Claim 17. A vehicle comprising the battery pack as claimed in claim 15.
Claim 4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first and/or second component of the oscillations has an amplitude of 0.1-0.5mm, preferably 0.2-0.4mm; and/or the oscillations have a frequency of 300-700Hz.
Claim 9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the weld path has constant curvature.
Claim 10. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the weld path is a loop of 8-12 mm perimeter length, and/or wherein the weld path is a circle of 2-4mm diameter.
Claim 19. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the tab is plated with nickel.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-17, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4, 6-9, and 12-20 of copending Application No. 18551158 (reference application).
The rejection of these claims are similar to the analysis above.
These rejections are all provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTENE NHELLE B MACEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-2380. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/K.B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights