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 11-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the word “focused” is misspelled;
Regarding claim 12, the claim language lacks proper antecedent basis for the phrase "the busbar assembly component";
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "a busbar component" should be changed to "the busbar component" as antecedent basis has been established in claim 12;
Claims 13 and 15-17 inherit the above deficiencies and are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 14-18 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 2 and 4, 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 3, the phrase “substantially” is a term of degree and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d);
Regarding claim 14, 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;
Claims 15-18 inherit the above deficiencies and are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claims.
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 14-17 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 14, 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 this case, and in light of the Examiner’s interpretation of the “cylindrical cells” in claim 14 referring to the same “cells” claimed in claim 12 detailed in the 112(b) rejection on claim 14 above, claim 14 introduces “a plurality of cylindrical cells” without proper antecedent basis to “a plurality of cells” mentioned in claim 12. As such, claim 14 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 14 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).
Claims 15-17 inherit the above deficiencies and are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claim.
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.
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 1-5, 7-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., WO 2019004039 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20210151837 A1, in view of Markushov et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101566 A1.
Claim 1. Shimizu discloses a method of welding a tab to a terminal of a cell using a laser welding system (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows tabs 26, 27 and 28 laser welded together at a region Q.)
the method comprising: placing the tab in contact with the terminal of the cell; and (Shimizu, [0034] “The first current collecting tab 26, the second current collecting tab 27, and the third current collecting tab 28 are conductive members that establish electrical connection between the outer case 50 as a negative electrode terminal…”)
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, (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows weld group 75 as concentric circles corresponding to the claimed predetermined shape, welding the tabs together to the terminal of the cell.)
wherein the laser welding system is configured to control the laser beam to oscillate about the weld path, (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 weld path and a second component in a direction normal to the weld 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.)
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose comprising a single-mode infra-red laser.
Markushov discloses [a laser welding system] comprising a single-mode infra-red laser, (Markushov, [0020] “The fiber laser 112 may include an Ytterbium fiber laser capable of generating a laser in the near infrared spectral range (e.g., 1060-1080 nm). The Ytterbium fiber laser may be a single mode or multi-mode continuous wave Ytterbium fiber laser…”)
Shimizu and Markushov are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Shimizu differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the laser welding system as an infrared laser. 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 welding system of Shimizu with the Ytterbium fiber laser of Markushov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution because the Ytterbium laser taught by Markushov is a known and conventional alternative for the purpose of laser welding using an infrared laser.
Claim 2. Modified Shimizu discloses 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. (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…”)
Claim 3. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the weld path is substantially continuous. (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows the circular weld paths being substantially continuous.)
Claim 4. Modified Shimizu discloses 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. (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.)
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the laser beam oscillation or frequency, however Markushov discloses the field of view utilized by the welding head as less than 30×30 mm, which directly affects the wobble of the laser 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 field of view utilized by Shimizu with the relatively small field of view of Markushov to achieve a sufficient amplitude of the laser beam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize the oscillations created 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).
Claim 5. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the laser welding system comprises one or more mirrors arranged to rotate to direct the laser beam, (Shimizu, [0101] “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.”)
wherein at least one of the one or more mirrors is arranged to rotate at a speed sufficient to cause a position of the laser beam on the tab to move at 100-200mm/s. (Shimizu, [0068] “The laser output was calculated at a constant condition of a welding speed of 470 mm/sec…”)
Shimizu discloses the speed at which the welding occurs via the laser beam being rotated by the galvanometer mirror 91 was calculated at 470 mm/s, which exceeds the claimed 100-200 mm/s speed of the laser beam. Shimizu also discloses that the depth of the weld is controlled by radiation time of the laser, which directly affects speed and establishes speed as a result effective variable. 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 radiation time until a resulting speed is achieved to optimize the weld depth that would be sufficient to join the components without damage, as taught by Shimizu.
Claim 7. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tab comprises copper. (Shimizu, [0035] “… the first to third current collecting tabs 26, 27, and 28 are preferably formed of metal mainly containing nickel or copper…”)
Claim 8. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cell is a cylindrical cell. (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows the battery 20f as cylindrical in shape.)
Claim 9. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the weld path has constant curvature. (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows weld path of weld group 75 is circular and therefore has a constant curvature.)
Claim 10. Modified Shimizu discloses 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. (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.)
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the circular weld path created by the welding system, however Markushov shows a similar circular pattern in Fig. 3A and discloses the field of view utilized by the welding head as less than 30×30 mm, which directly affects the diameter of the circular weld path being created on the workpiece. 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 field of view utilized by Shimizu with the relatively small field of view of Markushov to create a sufficient size circular weld path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize the weld path created 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).
Claim 11. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the laser welding system comprises a lens through which the laser beam passes, (Markushov, [0021] “The laser welding head 110 generally includes a collimator 122 for collimating the laser beam from the output fiber 111, at least first and second movable mirrors 132, 134 for reflecting and moving the collimated beam 116, and a focus lens 142 for focusing and delivering a focused beam 118 to the workpiece 102.”)
wherein the laser beam is an infra-red laser beam and (Markushov, [0020] “The fiber laser 112 may include an Ytterbium fiber laser capable of generating a laser in the near infrared spectral range (e.g., 1060-1080 nm). The Ytterbium fiber laser may be a single mode or multi-mode continuous wave Ytterbium fiber laser…”)
wherein the tab comprises a first surface which is placed in contact with the terminal and a second surface opposite the first surface, (Shimizu, Fig. 7 shows tab 26 having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; [0034] “The first current collecting tab 26, the second current collecting tab 27, and the third current collecting tab 28 are conductive members that establish electrical connection between the outer case 50 as a negative electrode terminal…”)
wherein the laser beam is focussed in a plane between the lens and the first surface. (Markushov, Fig. 1 shows lens 142 to focus the laser beam onto the surface of the workpiece 102; and Shimizu Fig. 7 and 9 show laser beam 80 being focused on a plane towards the first surface similarly to Markushov.)
Although Shimizu does not disclose the use of a lens to focus the beam in a plane between the lens and the first surface, it shows a galvanometer mirror 91 deflecting the laser, which is similar to the configuration of shown in Markushov Fig. 1. 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 welding system of Shimizu with an additional lens between the mirror and the workpiece as taught by Markushov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to adjust the laser beam to a variety of focal lengths (see Markushov, [0024]).
Claim 18. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the weld path is a continuous loop. (Shimizu, Fig. 6 shows the circular weld paths being substantially continuous.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., WO 2019004039 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20210151837 A1, in view of Markushov et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101566 A1, in further view of Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1.
Claim 6. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Shimizu does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal is a steel terminal.
Newman discloses wherein the 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.”)
Shimizu, Markushov and Newman are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Shimizu differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose a steel terminal, however it discloses that the terminal being used is part of the components that are electrically connected to the current collecting tabs 26-28, and it follows that they are similarly electrically conductive (see Shimizu, [0033]). 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 terminal of Shimizu with the steel terminal taught by Newman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution because the steel terminal of Newman is a known and conventional alternative material for electrically conductive parts.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., WO 2019004039 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20210151837 A1, in view of Markushov et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101566 A1, in further view of Fees et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200274132 A1 as evidenced by Jung US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1.
Claim 12. Modified Shimizu discloses according to the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Shimizu does not explicitly disclose 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.
Fees discloses 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, (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.)
Shimizu, Markushov and Fees are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Modified Shimizu differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the use of a busbar component to which the cells are welded on. 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 combined Shimizu and Markushov 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]).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., WO 2019004039 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20210151837 A1, in view of Markushov et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101566 A1, in further view of Fees et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200274132 A1, Newman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20180281110 A1, and Jung US Patent Application Publication No. 20070000883 A1.
Claim 13. Modified Shimizu discloses 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, (Markushov, [0022] “The movable mirrors 132, 134 are pivotable about different axes 131, 133 to cause the collimated beam 116 to move and thus to cause the focused beam 118 to move (e.g., wobble) relative to the workpiece 102 in at least two different perpendicular axes 2, 4” corresponding to the claimed scanning head.)
Modified Shimizu does not explicitly disclose 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.
Newman discloses wherein the method comprises: positioning each of the plurality of tabs in contact with one or more of the 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.”; and 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” similar to the movable mirrors disclosed by Markushov.)
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.)
Shimizu, Markushov and Newman are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. The laser welding system of combined Shimizu and Markushov differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the act of positioning a group of tabs with their respective terminals and moving the laser beam sequentially towards each of the tabs in the group to produce a first group of welds while using a scanning head held in a first position. Newman discloses a scanning head comprised of a plurality of mirrors similar to Markushov and teaches a method of holding the scanning head in a first position during the production of a first group of welds. 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 welding system movement of combined Shimizu and Markushov with sequential movement of mirrors to weld a first group of tabs as taught by Newman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to decrease the re-aiming and repositioning movement of the welder for each weld point as “this 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” (see Newman, [0014]).
Modified Shimizu 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 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 production of the second group of welds. (Jung, Fig. 3 shows multiple beams applied to a plurality of welding points at the second position.)
Shimizu, Markushov, Newman and Jung are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Modified Shimizu differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose a second position of the scanning head in order to produce a second set of welds on a second group of tabs. 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 laser welding system for welding a plurality of cells of modified Shimizu 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 14. Modified Shimizu discloses according to the method as claimed in claim 12.
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 Shimizu, 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 15. Modified Shimizu discloses a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules as claimed in claim 14. (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 16. Modified Shimizu discloses a vehicle comprising the battery module as claimed in claim 14. (Fees, [0003] “Energy storage systems may rely upon battery cells for storage of electrical power. For example, in certain conventional electric vehicle (EV) designs (e.g., fully electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, etc.), a battery housing mounted into an electric vehicle houses a plurality of battery cells…”)
Claim 17. Modified Shimizu discloses a vehicle comprising the battery pack as claimed in claim 15. (Fees, [0003] “Energy storage systems may rely upon battery cells for storage of electrical power. For example, in certain conventional electric vehicle (EV) designs (e.g., fully electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, etc.), a battery housing mounted into an electric vehicle houses a plurality of battery cells…”)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., WO 2019004039 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20210151837 A1, in view of Markushov et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101566 A1, in further view of Chen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20170125775 A1.
Claim 19. Modified Shimizu discloses the method as claimed in claim 7.
Modified Shimizu does not explicitly disclose wherein the tab is plated with nickel.
Chen discloses wherein the tab is plated with nickel. (Chen, [0004] “… the copper tabs and/or copper conductor may be coated with a thin layer of nickel to enhance corrosion resistance.”)
Shimizu, Markushov and Chen are analogous art because they are related to welding systems. Shimizu differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the tab also being plated with nickel. Chen discloses plating copper tabs 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 Shimizu 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 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18552149 (reference application).
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 19. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the tab is plated with nickel.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 20. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the copper is plated with nickel or titanium.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, 12-17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4, 7-8 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 no 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