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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mombo-Caristan (US5595670).
PNG
media_image1.png
184
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Mombo-Caristan
PNG
media_image2.png
426
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Mombo-Caristan
PNG
media_image3.png
496
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13 of Mombo-Caristan
Regarding claim 3, Mombo-Caristan teaches a welding method comprising:
overlaying a second member (40) on a second surface of a first member (42), the first member (42) having a first surface and the second surface that face in opposite directions (Annotated Fig. 13);
irradiating the first surface of the first member (42) with a line-shaped laser beam (50, 52); and
causing a solidified portion (128) formed by irradiation with the line-shaped laser beam (50, 52) to join the first member (42) and the second member (40),
wherein, defining a first direction (Fig. 5 length l) and a second direction (Fig. 5 length w) that intersect within the first surface (42), the line-shaped laser beam (50, 52) is longer along the first direction (l) than along the second direction (w, Figs. 5-9), and
wherein, defining ends of the line-shaped laser beam (50, 52) in the first direction as a first end and a second end and defining a central portion between the first end and the second end of the line-shaped laser beam (Fig. 7),
a beam (50, 52) width in the second direction at the first end and the second end is wider than a beam width in the second direction in the central portion (Annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Mombo-Caristan teaches the welding method according to claim 1, further comprising:
injecting an assist gas onto the first surface (Col. 9 lines 45-50 a welding assist gas, such as argon, helium, nitrogen, another assist gas, or a suitable combination of assist gases is preferably directed from an assist gas supply through a nozzle onto an area of the sheets 40 & 42) when irradiating the first surface of the first member (42) with the line-shaped laser beam (50, 52),
wherein a flow rate of the assist gas injected onto a first portion of the first surface irradiated with the first end and the second end of the line-shaped laser beam is smaller than a flow rate of the assist gas injected onto a second portion irradiated with the central portion of the line-shaped laser beam (Col. 9 lines 45-50 it is understood, by the nature of a nozzle, that gas would have a higher flow rate in the center rather than a first and second end).
Regarding claim 5, Mombo-Caristan teaches the welding method according to claim 4,
wherein the assist gas is injected along the first surface (Col. 9 lines 45-50 a welding assist gas, such as argon, helium, nitrogen, another assist gas, or a suitable combination of assist gases is preferably directed from an assist gas supply through a nozzle onto an area of the sheets 40 & 42).
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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mombo-Caristan (US5595670) in view of Sakai (JP2003260583A) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Mombo-Caristan teaches a welding method comprising:
overlaying a second member (40) on a second surface of a first member (42), the first member (42) having a first surface and the second surface that face in opposite directions (Fig. 13);
irradiating the first surface of the first member (42) with a line-shaped laser beam (50, 52); and
causing a solidified portion (128) formed by irradiation with the line-shaped laser beam (50, 52) to join the first member (42) and the second member (40),
wherein, defining a first direction (Fig. 5 length l) and a second direction that intersect within the first surface (Fig. 5 width w), the line-shaped laser beam (50, 52) is longer along the first direction than along the second direction (Figs. 5-9),
Mombo-Caristan is silent on wherein a beam intensity at a first end and a second end, which are ends of the line-shaped laser beam in the first direction, is higher than a beam intensity in a central portion of the line-shaped laser beam sandwiched by the first end and the second end.
PNG
media_image4.png
814
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs. 6 and 8 of Sakai
Sakai teaches wherein a beam intensity at a first end (A) and a second end (A'), which are ends of the line-shaped laser beam in the first direction (Fig. 6, [0031] row in the width direction of the steel plate over the entire width), is higher than a beam intensity in a central portion of the line-shaped laser beam sandwiched by the first end and the second end ([0012, 0031] the entire plate can be uniformly heated by increasing the light intensity of the edge portion where a temperature drop is likely to occur to be higher than the light intensity of the central portion; FIG. 6, 8, since the outputs of the optical fibers disposed at both edge portions are increased so as to compensate for the temperature decrease, a substantially constant temperature distribution is obtained.).
Mombo-Caristan and Sakai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mombo-Caristan to incorporate the teachings of Sakai to have the beam intensities at the ends of the beam be greater than that of the center so as to compensate for the temperature decrease, a substantially constant temperature distribution is obtained (Sakai [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Mombo-Caristan and Sakai teach the welding method according to claim 1, and Mombo-Caristan teaches wherein a beam width in the second direction at the first end and the second end is wider than a beam width in the second direction in the central portion (Annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Mombo-Caristan and Sakai teach the welding method according to claim 1, and Mombo-Caristan teaches injecting an assist gas onto the first surface (Col. 9 lines 45-50 a welding assist gas, such as argon, helium, nitrogen, another assist gas, or a suitable combination of assist gases is preferably directed from an assist gas supply through a nozzle onto an area of the sheets 40 & 42) when irradiating the first surface of the first member (42) with the line-shaped laser beam (50, 52), wherein the assist gas is injected along the first surface (40, 42).
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mombo-Caristan (US5595670) in view of Nishii (US12544857B2).
Regarding claim 7, Mombo-Caristan teaches a welding structure of a metal member (40, 42) in which a second member (40) is overlaid on a second surface of a first member (42), the first member (42) having a first surface and the second surface that face in opposite directions (Annotated Fig. 13),
the welding structure comprising:
a solidified portion (128) produced by melting the first member (42) from the first surface as far as the second member (40) via the second surface,
wherein the solidified portion has a bead (50, 52) protruding from the first surface (42),
wherein, defining a first direction (Fig. 5 l) and a second direction (Fig. 5 h) that intersect within the first surface, the bead (50, 52) has a line shape more elongated along the first direction than along the second direction (Figs. 5-9).
Mombo-Caristan is silent on wherein the bead does not have a depression.
PNG
media_image5.png
298
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14b of Nishii
Nishii teaches wherein the bead does not have a depression (Col. 10 lines 15-30 FIG. 14B, no void was formed in the section crossing the bead and the bead surface was smooth, thereby acquiring a weld state of extremely fine quality).
Mombo-Caristan and Nishii are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mombo-Caristan to incorporate the teachings of Nishii to have the beam not have a depression in order to acquire a wled state of extremely fine quality (Col. 10 lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 8, Mombo-Caristan and Nishii teach the welding structure of a metal member according to claim 7, and Mombo-Caristan teaches wherein a length of the bead in the first direction (l) is more than a length of the bead in the second direction (h, Figs. 5-9).
Mombo-Caristan and Nishii are silent on wherein a length of the bead in the first direction is 10 times or more than a length of the bead in the second direction.
However, applicant has not stated the lengths of the bead in the first direction being 10 times or more than a length of the bead in the second direction provide any unexpected or synergetic results. As such it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the lengths of the bead in both the first and second directions as taught by the combination of Mombo-Caristan in view of Nishii to have the dimensions claimed as when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a scaling or dimension which does not provide a new or unexpected result a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate see MPEP §2144.04.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mombo-Caristan (US5595670) in view of Nishii (US12544857B2) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shirane (US20040247999A1).
Regarding claim 9, Mombo-Caristan and Nishii teach the welding structure of a metal member according to claim 7, but are silent on wherein the first member is a current collector plate, and wherein the second member is an electrode plate.
Shirane teaches wherein the first member is a current collector plate ([0060] current collector plate 109) of a battery ([0008] battery), and
wherein the second member is an electrode plate ([0060] electrode 102, 110) of the battery ([0008] battery).
Mombo-Caristan, Nishii, and Shirane are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mombo-Caristan and Nishii to incorporate the teachings of Shirane to apply the method to a metal member that is comprised of a current collector plate and an electrode plate so that a current collector plate may be surely attached to the electrode plate, which improves battery characteristics (Shirane [0112]).
Regarding claim 10, Mombo-Caristan, Nishii, and Shirane teach the welding structure of a metal member according to claim 9, but Mombo-Caristan and Nishii are silent on wherein the current collector plate is made of nickel-plated iron, and wherein the electrode plate is formed by a copper foil.
Shirane teaches wherein the current collector plate (109) is made of nickel-plated iron ([0013] the current collector plate is preferably made of a nickel plate or a nickel-plated metal plate), and
wherein the electrode plate (102) is formed by a copper foil ([0053] copper foil).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mombo-Caristan and Nishii to incorporate the teachings of Shirane to apply the method to a metal member that has the current collector plate being a nickel plate iron and the electrode plate being a copper foil in order to be able to manufacture a battery that is advantageous in batteries that have little hollow in the winding core of an electrode (Shirane [0112]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/16/2026
Prosecution Insights