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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed November 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yao et al. CN107755881 (A).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-15 and 16, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. CN107755881 (A) in view of Sakai et al. US 2019/0283175 A1 and Ishikawa et al. US 20120288324 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Yao discloses a method for improving a welding seam (Para. 8) formed by welding a multi-layer aluminum foil stack of a current collector (Fig. 2, Ref. 4) of a battery (Fig. 2, Ref. 5) and a part thereof (Fig. 2, Ref. 6), wherein the welding seam is formed by a laser beam directed at a surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack (Fig. 2, Ref. 9), the welding seam penetrates through a thickness of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack into the part (Fig. 2, Ref. 7).
Yao discloses incrementally increasing the temperature of the laser, but does not specifically disclose the method comprising: a remelting step, in which a welding seam edge of the welding seam on a surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack is remelted multiple times by a laser beam wherein a heat input used for a first remelting is lower than that used for forming the welding seam, and the heat input used for each remelting after the first remelting decreases compared with the remelting of the last time, and in each remelting, a welding seam edge formed by the remelting of the last time is remelted, and wherein the welding seam edge formed by each remelting is offset from the welding seam edge formed by the remelting of the last time in a direction away from the welding seam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches wherein a remelting step (Fig. 1, Ref. S130) in which a welding seam edge of the welding seam on a surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack is remelted multiple times by a laser beam (Fig. 1, Refs. S130 and S140), and a heat input used for a first remelting is lower than that used for forming the welding seam (Para. 15), and the heat input used for each remelting after the first remelting decreases compared with the remelting of the last time (Para. 23).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Yao with Sakai to increase reliability on the welded product by reducing defects.
Also in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches in each remelting, a welding seam edge formed by the remelting of the last time is remelted, and wherein the welding seam edge formed by each remelting is offset from the welding seam edge formed by the remelting of the last time in a direction away from the welding seam (Para. 21 Part 8; Fig. 2, Refs. 13A’ show the welding zones running parallel to the original weld bead Ref. 12A’).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Yao with Ishikawa to reduce stress in the weld bead.
Regarding claim 14, Yao does not specifically disclose in the remelting step, the laser beam is moved relative to the multi-layer aluminum foil stack along a welding seam edge or parallel to a welding seam edge in the vicinity thereof; and/or a moving speed of the laser beam relative to the multi-layer aluminum foil stack is accelerated compared to that for forming the welding seam; and/or the surface is a top surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack facing the laser beam, and wherein the part is under a lower surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack facing away from the laser beam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches in the remelting step, the laser beam is moved relative to the multi-layer aluminum foil stack along a welding seam edge or parallel to a welding seam edge in the vicinity thereof (Para. 21 Part 8; Fig. 2, Refs. 13A’ show the welding zones running parallel to the original weld bead Ref. 12A’); and/or to achieve the lower heat input in the remelting step, a laser power of the laser beam is reduced compared with that for forming the welding seam (Para. 29); and/or a moving speed of the laser beam relative to the multi-layer aluminum foil stack is accelerated compared to that for forming the welding seam; and/or the surface is a top surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack facing the laser beam, and wherein the part is under a lower surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack facing away from the laser beam.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Yao with Sakai to increase reliability on the welded product by reducing defects.
Regarding claim 15, Yao does not specifically disclose wherein the lengths of the welding seam edges formed by individual remeltings are equal to each other; and/or the depth of a melt pool in each remelting decreases with the increase of the number of remeltings and is smaller than the thickness of the multilayer aluminum foil stack; and/or the total number of remeltings is selected so that the welding seam meets the requirements in terms of cracks.
However in the same field of endeavor, Saika teaches wherein the lengths of the welding seam edges formed by individual remeltings are equal to each other (Fig. 2, shows Refs. 13A’ to be the same length as the weld bead 12A’); and/or the depth of a melt pool in each remelting decreases with the increase of the number of remeltings (Fig. 2, Ref.s 13A’ are significantly shallower than the original weld bead Ref. 12A’) and is smaller than the thickness of the multilayer aluminum foil stack; and/or the total number of remeltings is selected so that the welding seam meets the requirements in terms of cracks.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Yao with Sakai to increase reliability on the welded product by reducing defects.
Regarding claim 17, Yao discloses a welding method for welding a multi-layer aluminum foil stack of a current collector of a battery and a part thereof (Para. 8), wherein the welding method comprises: a primary welding step, in which the multi-layer aluminum foil stack and the part are welded by a laser beam (Para. 44), thereby forming a welding seam; and an improvement step, in which an improvement method according to claim 13 is implemented for the welding seam (as detailed above).
Regarding claim 19, Yao discloses wherein the welding method is performed by means of a scanning optic or a fixed welding head (Fig. 2, Ref. 1); and/or prior to the welding method, aluminum foils of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack were pre-welded together by ultrasonic.
Regarding claim 20, Yao discloses a laser processing system, comprising at least: a laser device for generating a laser beam (Para. 19); a control device at least for controlling the laser device (Fig. 2, Ref. 1); wherein the laser processing system is configured to perform: the improvement method according to claim 13 (As detailed above).
Regarding claim 21, Yao discloses a control device for a laser processing system (Para. 22), wherein the control device is configured to perform: the improvement method according to claim 13.
Regarding claim 22, Yao discloses a computer program product comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by a processor (Para. 38 wherein the controller is performing functions based on feedback), implement: the improvement method according to claim 13 (As detailed above).
Claims 16 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. CN107755881 (A) in view of Sakai et al. US 2019/0283175 A1 and Ishikawa et al. US 20120288324 A1 and in further view of Ramsayer US 20120302107A1.
Regarding claim 16, though Yao discloses a battery, the art does not specifically disclose wherein: the battery is a lithium ion battery; and/or the part is a positive pole of the battery.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ramsayer teaches wherein: the battery is a lithium ion battery (Para. 5); and/or the part is a positive pole of the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Yao with Ramsayer to apply the method to a battery used for similar uses.
Regarding claim 18, Yao discloses welding a multi-later aluminum foil stack (Fig. 2, Ref. 4), but does not specifically disclose wherein in the primary welding step, the welding seam is formed by a linear or curved track of the laser beam on a surface of the multi-layer aluminum foil stack.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ramsayer teaches the welding seam is formed by a linear or curved track of the laser beam (Para. 28 and 30 wherein various weld beam tracks are detailed) on a surface.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Yao with Ramsayer to establish a cohesive connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Warren et al. WO 2007112116 A2 - Integrated module connection for hev battery
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761