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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 28, 2024 and November 10, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 7-8, 10-11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiko et al. (JP 2019145478 A), hereinafter referred to as Eiko, in view of Geshi et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20100167094 A1), hereinafter referred to as Geshi.
Regarding claim 1, Eiko teaches an energy storage device that is cylindrical in shape (“a cylindrical battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Eiko teaches the energy storage device comprises a case 3 having a bottom portion 30 (“a housing, having a first end portion”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Eiko teaches the energy storage device comprises a winding body 2 that includes a first electrode 21 and a second electrode 22 wound around a winding axis X and accommodated in the case 3 (“an electrode assembly, accommodated in the housing”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Eiko teaches the energy storage device comprises a current collector plate 4 that is electrically and mechanically connected to the first electrode 21 at the first winding end 24 and is located between the first winding end 24 and the bottom 30 (“a first current collecting disc, wherein the first current collecting disc is electrically connected to the electrode assembly in the housing”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Eiko teaches the current collector plate 4 and the bottom portion 30 are electrically and mechanically connected by a second welded portion 34 using laser welding (“at least one welding track is provided on the first end portion and the at least one welding track is configured to be connected to the first current collecting disc, the first end portion further comprises a first surface oriented away from the first current collecting disc” (see e.g., paragraph [0031]). Eiko teaches the second weld 34 is linear and extends along the winding direction of the wound body 2 to secure a welding area between the current collector plate 4 and the bottom portion 30 while avoiding the first weld 41 (“on the first surface, the at least one welding track is arranged at a first distance from a center of the first surface”) (see e.g., paragraph [0032] and Figure 4B).
Eiko does not explicitly teach a protection piece, covering the welding tracks.
However, Geshi teaches a battery structure (see e.g., Abstract). Geshi teaches the battery structure 10 comprises at least two batteries each of which is covered with heat-shrinkable outer insulating tubes (see e.g., paragraph [0051]). Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes cover the outer side faces, upper side outer edges, and bottom side outer edges of the batteries, covering the weld spots 14 (“a protection piece, covering the welding tracks”) (see e.g., paragraph [0051] and Figure 2) in order to permit more reliable insulating of the batteries of the battery structure from the outside, thereby improving the safety of the battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the energy storage device of Eiko to include a heat-shrinkable outer insulating tube covering the welding spots on the outer surface of the housing, as taught by Geshi, in order to permit more reliable insulating of the batteries of the battery structure from the outside, thereby improving the safety of the battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the surface of the bottom portion 30 includes a first region, wherein the center of the first surface is located, and the second region that is arranged around the first region and all of the second welded portions 34s are located (“wherein, the first surface comprises a first region and a second region, the center of the first surface is located in the first region, the second region is arranged around the first region, and all of the at least one welding track are located in the second region”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 5B).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Eiko Figure 5B
As previously described in claim 1, Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes cover the outer side faces, upper side outer edges, and bottom side outer edges of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0051] and Figure 2). Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes does not cover the center region of the battery cell, wherein the bus bar is disposed to electrically connect the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0005]); therefore, Geshi meets “the protection piece covers the second region and the protection piece does not cover the first region, and the first region is configured to be electrically connected to a bus plate.”
Regarding claim 8, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the second welded portion 34 includes a plurality of welding tracks, wherein each welding track has a starting end and ending end (“wherein the at least one welding track includes a plurality of welding tracks; each welding track has a starting end and an ending end”) (see e.g., Annotated Eiko Figure 5B). Eiko teaches each of the second welded portions 34 form forms an angle at the center of the first surface, the angle of each welding track being formed by lines connecting the starting end and the ending end of each welding track respectively to the center of the first surface (see e.g., Annotated Eiko Figure 5B).
Eiko does not explicitly teach the sum of the angles of plurality of welding tracks is greater than 180°. However, Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Further, in Figure 5B, the sum of the angles of the second welded portions 34 appears to be equal to or greater than 180°. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill to design the sum of the angles of the second welded portions 34 be greater than 180° of Eiko, as modified by [], because Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion is not particularly limited as long as it does not overlap with the first weld and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 1, Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes comprise a heat-shrinkable insulating material (“wherein the protection piece is a heat-shrinkable film”) (see e.g., paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Eiko teaches an energy storage module 100 (“a battery pack”) that includes a plurality of the energy storage devices 1 that are electrically and mechanically connected by conductive members 110 that have electrical conductivity, such as bus bar (“wherein the battery pack comprises a bus plate and a plurality of batteries, wherein each battery is the battery according to claim 1”) (see e.g., paragraph [0043]). Eiko teaches the conductive members 110 is connected to the bottom portion 30 of the energy storage devices (“the bus plate is electrically connected to the first end portions of the plurality of batteries”) (see e.g., Figure 5A).
Regarding claim 17, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the surface of the bottom portion 30 includes a first region, wherein the center of the first surface is located, and the second region that is arranged around the first region and all of the second welded portions 34s are located (“wherein, the first surface comprises a first region and a second region, the center of the first surface is located in the first region, the second region is arranged around the first region, and all of the at least one welding track are located in the second region”) (see e.g., Annotated Figure 5B).
As previously described in claim 1, Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes cover the outer side faces, upper side outer edges, and bottom side outer edges of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0051] and Figure 2). Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes does not cover the center region of the battery cell, wherein the bus bar is disposed to electrically connect the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0005]); therefore, Geshi meets “the protection piece covers the second region and the protection piece does not cover the first region, and the first region is configured to be electrically connected to a bus plate.”
Regarding claim 18, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the second welded portion 34 includes a plurality of welding tracks, wherein each welding track has a starting end and ending end (“wherein the at least one welding track includes a plurality of welding tracks; each welding track has a starting end and an ending end”) (see e.g., Annotated Eiko Figure 5B). Eiko teaches each of the second welded portions 34 form forms an angle at the center of the first surface, the angle of each welding track being formed by lines connecting the starting end and the ending end of each welding track respectively to the center of the first surface (see e.g., Annotated Eiko Figure 5B).
Eiko does not explicitly teach the sum of the angles of plurality of welding tracks is greater than 180°. However, Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Further, in Figure 5B, the sum of the angles of the second welded portions 34 appears to be equal to or greater than 180°. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill to design the sum of the angles of the second welded portions 34 be greater than 180° of Eiko, as modified by [], because Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion is not particularly limited as long as it does not overlap with the first weld and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 20, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 11, Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes comprise a heat-shrinkable insulating material (“wherein the protection piece is a heat-shrinkable film”) (see e.g., paragraph [0051]).
Claims 2-6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiko et al. (JP 2019145478 A) in view of Geshi et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20100167094 A1), and further in view of Okabe et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20080166630 A1), hereinafter referred to as Okabe.
Regarding claim 2, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]); however, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, does not explicitly teach “wherein the first distance is L, and a radius of the first surface is R, wherein L/R ≥ 0.5.
However, Okabe teaches a sealed battery comprising a housing, an electrode assembly, a lower current collecting plate, and a bottom of the housing (see e.g., Abstract). Okabe teaches the welding portions of the lower surface of the lower current collecting plate and the inner surface of the container bottom are within a range between a concentric circle parted from the center by 48% and a concentric circle parted from the center by 93% in the length from the center to the outer circumference of the lower current collecting plate (“wherein the first distance is L, and a radius of the first surface is R, wherein L/R ≥ 0.5”) (see e.g., paragraph [0018]) in order to lower the inner resistance and increase the output density (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the placement of the second welded portion of Eiko, as modified by Geshi, to be within 48% to 93% of the outer circumference of the current collecting plate, as taught by Okabe, in order to lower the inner resistance and increase the output density (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because distance overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 3, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 2, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 2, Okabe teaches the welding portions of the lower surface of the lower current collecting plate and the inner surface of the container bottom are within a range between a concentric circle parted from the center by 48% and a concentric circle parted from the center by 93% in the length from the center to the outer circumference of the lower current collecting plate (“wherein 0.7 ≤ L/R ≤ 0.98”) (see e.g., paragraph [0018]) in order to lower the inner resistance and increase the output density (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the distance overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 4, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 2, as previously described.
Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, does not explicitly teach wherein, on the first surface, a distance from the protection piece to the center of the first surface is M, and 0.5 mm ≤ L – M ≤ 10 mm.
However, Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes cover the outer side faces, upper side outer edges, and bottom side outer edges of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0051]), as well as covering a portion of the top surface of the battery cells (see e.g., Figure 2) in order to permit more reliable insulating of the batteries of the battery structure from the outside, thereby improving the safety of the battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]). Since Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes cover the weld spots, the distance of the outer insulating tubes to the center of the top surface (M) is less than that of the distance of the weld spots to the center of the top surface (L).
While Geshi does not explicitly teach the relationship of L – M, Geshi teaches the battery case has an outer diameter of 32.2 mm (or radius of 16.1 mm) (see e.g., paragraph [0086]), and thus, the relationship would be at least less than 16.1 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 mm ≤ L – M ≤ 10 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the outer insulating tubes covering the energy storage device of Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, to be closer to the center of the top surface than that of the weld spots and at a distance of at least less than 16.1 mm, as taught by Geshi, in order to permit more reliable insulating of the batteries of the battery structure from the outside, thereby improving the safety of the battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Eiko teaches that it is preferable that the welding area between the current collector plate 4 and the bottom portion 30 is smaller than the welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]) in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would optimize the sum of the total area of the welding area of Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, to be minimized, as taught by Eiko, such as having a sum of the total area of the welding area to be within the range of 0.2 mm2 and 0.8 mm2, in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the electrode assembly and current collector plate, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Eiko teaches that it is preferable that the welding area between the current collector plate 4 and the bottom portion 30 is smaller than the welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]) in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would optimize the sum of the total area of the welding area of Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, to be minimized, as taught by Eiko, such ratio of the total area of the welding area to the area of the bottom portion be within a range of 5% to 10%, in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the electrode assembly and current collector plate, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]); however, Eiko, as modified by [], does not explicitly teach “wherein the first distance is L, and a radius of the first surface is R, wherein L/R ≥ 0.5.
However, Okabe teaches a sealed battery comprising a housing, an electrode assembly, a lower current collecting plate, and a bottom of the housing (see e.g., Abstract). Okabe teaches the welding portions of the lower surface of the lower current collecting plate and the inner surface of the container bottom are within a range between a concentric circle parted from the center by 48% and a concentric circle parted from the center by 93% in the length from the center to the outer circumference of the lower current collecting plate (“wherein the first distance is L, and a radius of the first surface is R, wherein L/R ≥ 0.5”) (see e.g., paragraph [0018]) in order to lower the inner resistance and increase the output density (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the placement of the second welded portion of Eiko, as modified by Geshi, to be within 48% to 93% of the outer circumference of the current collecting plate, as taught by Okabe, in order to lower the inner resistance and increase the output density (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because distance overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 13, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 2, Okabe teaches the welding portions of the lower surface of the lower current collecting plate and the inner surface of the container bottom are within a range between a concentric circle parted from the center by 48% and a concentric circle parted from the center by 93% in the length from the center to the outer circumference of the lower current collecting plate (“wherein 0.7 ≤ L/R ≤ 0.98”) (see e.g., paragraph [0018]) in order to lower the inner resistance and increase the output density (see e.g., paragraph [0065]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the distance overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 14, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
“Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, does not explicitly teach wherein, on the first surface, a distance from the protection piece to the center of the first surface is M, and 0.5 mm ≤ L – M ≤ 10 mm.
However, Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes cover the outer side faces, upper side outer edges, and bottom side outer edges of the batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0051]), as well as covering a portion of the top surface of the battery cells (see e.g., Figure 2) in order to permit more reliable insulating of the batteries of the battery structure from the outside, thereby improving the safety of the battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]). Since Geshi teaches the outer insulating tubes cover the weld spots, the distance of the outer insulating tubes to the center of the top surface (M) is less than that of the distance of the weld spots to the center of the top surface (L).
While Geshi does not explicitly teach the relationship of L – M, Geshi teaches the battery case has an outer diameter of 32.2 mm (or radius of 16.1 mm) (see e.g., paragraph [0086]), and thus, the relationship would be at least less than 16.1 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 mm ≤ L – M ≤ 10 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the outer insulating tubes covering the energy storage device of Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, to be closer to the center of the top surface than that of the weld spots and at a distance of at least less than 16.1 mm, as taught by Geshi, in order to permit more reliable insulating of the batteries of the battery structure from the outside, thereby improving the safety of the battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Eiko teaches that it is preferable that the welding area between the current collector plate 4 and the bottom portion 30 is smaller than the welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]) in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would optimize the sum of the total area of the welding area of Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, to be minimized, as taught by Eiko, such as having a sum of the total area of the welding area to be within the range of 0.2 mm2 and 0.8 mm2, in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the electrode assembly and current collector plate, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
Eiko teaches the shape and placement of the second welded portion 34 is not particularly limited as long the second weld 34 is located in a position that does not overlap with the first weld 41 when viewed from one direction in the winding axis X direction (see e.g., paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Eiko teaches that it is preferable that the welding area between the current collector plate 4 and the bottom portion 30 is smaller than the welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]) in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would optimize the sum of the total area of the welding area of Eiko, as modified by Geshi and Okabe, to be minimized, as taught by Eiko, such ratio of the total area of the welding area to the area of the bottom portion be within a range of 5% to 10%, in order to prioritize a larger welding area between the electrode assembly and current collector plate, thereby ensure the connection strength between the first electrode 21 and the current collector plate 4 (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiko et al. (JP 2019145478 A) in view of Geshi et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20100167094 A1), and further in view of Cheng et al. (CN 115347332 A), hereinafter referred to as Cheng.
Regarding claim 9, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 8, as previously described.
Eiko, as modified by Geshi, does not explicitly teach wherein each welding track comprises a plurality of welding wires, and the plurality of welding wires of the each welding track are arranged in sequence along a direction from the center of the first surface to the second region.
However, Cheng teaches an electrochemical device including a housing, an electrode assembly, and a current collector (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Cheng teaches the welding line on the current collector includes multiple bonding wires that are arranged at intervals around the center of the surface (“wherein each welding track comprises a plurality of welding wires, and the plurality of welding wires of the each welding track are arranged in sequence along a direction from the center of the first surface to the second region”) (see e.g., paragraph [0009]) in order to improve the reliability of welding (see e.g., paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the welded portion of the energy storage device of Eiko, as modified by Geshi, to comprise a plurality of wires that are arranged at intervals around the center of the surface, as taught by Cheng, in order to improve the reliability of welding (see e.g., paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 19, Eiko, as modified by Geshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 11, as previously described.
Eiko, as modified by Geshi, does not explicitly teach wherein each welding track comprises a plurality of welding wires, and the plurality of welding wires of the each welding track are arranged in sequence along a direction from the center of the first surface to the second region.
However, Cheng teaches an electrochemical device including a housing, an electrode assembly, and a current collector (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Cheng teaches the welding line on the current collector includes multiple bonding wires that are arranged at intervals around the center of the surface (“wherein each welding track comprises a plurality of welding wires, and the plurality of welding wires of the each welding track are arranged in sequence along a direction from the center of the first surface to the second region”) (see e.g., paragraph [0009]) in order to improve the reliability of welding (see e.g., paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the welded portion of the energy storage device of Eiko, as modified by Geshi, to comprise a plurality of wires that are arranged at intervals around the center of the surface, as taught by Cheng, in order to improve the reliability of welding (see e.g., paragraph [0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xiong et al. (CN 217934126 U) teaches a battery comprises a shell, an electric core assembly, a first current collecting plate with a first welding area, an end cover assembly with a marking part (see e.g., Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights