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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As noted in previous office action, present claims 1-9 are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). For example, “plurality of electrodes tabs” are workpiece materials which do not structurally limit the claimed welding apparatus.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 2006/0169388, hereafter “Shimizu”) in view of Park et al. (WO 2020/153570, “Park”). US 2022/0088708 A1 is taken to be English-equivalent of the WO document and portions cited below refer to the US PG-pub.
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses an ultrasonic welding apparatus [0029-0030] comprising (figs. 1-4, 11-14): a horn 150 having a first welding surface on which a plurality of first protrusions 152, 157-158 are provided (figs. 4, 14); and anvil 110 having a second welding surface on which a plurality of second protrusions 112, 157 are provided (figs. 4, 13), wherein the anvil 110 is oriented to face the horn 150, configured to accommodate a plurality of electrode tabs 210 of a secondary battery 200 (fig. 3) between the anvil and the horn (figs. 4, 11, 13), wherein a width of the horn 150 is less than a width of the electrode tabs 210 (fig. 4), wherein the first welding surface comprises a first area and a second area, wherein ones of the plurality of first protrusions in the first area are spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal dimension of the horn, ones of the plurality of first protrusions in the second area are immediately adjacent each other along the longitudinal dimension so as to not be spaced apart, wherein a plane extends between the first area and the second area along the longitudinal dimension to define a planar interface, and wherein the second area extends from the planar interface to an opposing end of the horn along a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension (see fig. 14 diagram below). Examiner notes that “first area” and “second area” are of arbitrary shapes and not limited by any dimensions/size.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning planar cross-section shape of the plurality of protrusions on the horn & the anvil, Shimizu teaches that shown protrusions are exemplary of quadrilateral shape [0062], but are not limited and may include other shapes such as prismoid or ridges, providing gripping force on the material [0044-0045, 0066]. Analogous to Shimizu, Park teaches a welding apparatus (figs. 4-6) comprising a horn 21 having a first welding surface with a plurality of first protrusions and an anvil 22 having a second welding surface with a plurality of second protrusions, wherein each of the plurality of first protrusions 212 has a planar cross-section shape (figs. 5-6- truncated cone, [0067]) different from a planar cross-section shape of each of the plurality of second protrusions (fig. 4- pyramid). Given teachings of Shimizu & Park, one would appreciate that having different shapes of the protrusions are known for welding electrode tabs while manufacturing a battery and providing gripping force. Furthermore, examiner notes that shape of the protrusions was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was of critical significance (MPEP 2144.04(IV)). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the invention, artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select different suitable shapes (truncated cone or pyramid) for the plurality of protrusions on the horn and/or anvil in order to provide desired gripping force, as suggested by Shimizu [0044-0045].
As to claim 3, Shimizu shows that in the first area, a spaced distance between the plurality of first protrusions is a substantially same dimension as a pitched dimension of the first protrusions (fig. 14) - spaced distance is of a space of a single protruding portion (additionally Shimizu also recognizes this spaced distance may vary) [0062].
As to claim 5, examiner notes that dimensions of the electrode tabs concerning workpiece may vary and do not structurally limit the horn or the anvil. The horn and the anvil in the welding apparatus of Shimizu and Park are designed to weld electrode tabs of varying dimensions (Park- [0043-0044)]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select electrode tabs having recited width difference of about 2-2.5 mm compared to the horn for the purpose of manufacturing the desired type of secondary battery.
As to claim 6, Shimizu shows that the anvil 110 has a width that is equal to the width of the horn 150 (figs. 4, 13).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu discloses an ultrasonic welding method [0029-0030] comprising (figs. 1-4, 11-14): aligning a horn 150 having a first welding surface on which a plurality of first protrusions 152, 157-158 are provided (figs. 4, 14), and an anvil 110 having a second welding surface on which a plurality of second protrusions 112, 157 are provided to face each other (figs. 4, 13); and pressing a plurality of electrode tabs 210 of a secondary battery 200 using the horn, wherein each of the electrode tabs has a width greater than a width of the horn 150 (figs. 3-4), wherein the first welding surface comprises a first area and a second area, wherein ones of the plurality of first protrusions in the first area are spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal dimension of the horn, wherein a plane extends between the first area and the second area along the longitudinal dimension to define a planar interface, and wherein the second area extends from the planar interface to an opposing end of the horn along a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension (see fig. 14 diagram above).
Concerning planar cross-section shape of the plurality of protrusions on the horn & the anvil, Shimizu teaches that shown protrusions 157 are exemplary of quadrilateral shape [0062], but are not limited and may include other shapes such as prismoid or ridges, providing gripping force on the material [0044-0045, 0066]. Analogous to Shimizu, Park teaches a welding apparatus (figs. 4-6) comprising a horn 21 having a first welding surface with a plurality of first protrusions and an anvil 22 having a second welding surface with a plurality of second protrusions, wherein each of the plurality of first protrusions 212 has a planar cross-section shape (figs. 5-6- truncated cone, [0067]) different from a planar cross-section shape of each of the plurality of second protrusions (fig. 4- pyramid). Given teachings of Shimizu & Park, one would appreciate that having different shapes of the protrusions are known for welding electrode tabs while manufacturing a battery and providing gripping force. Furthermore, examiner notes that shape of the protrusions was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was of critical significance (MPEP 2144.04(IV)). Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the invention, artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select different suitable shapes (truncated cone or pyramid) for the plurality of protrusions on the horn and/or anvil in order to provide desired gripping force, as suggested by Shimizu [0044-0045].
As to claim 11, Shimizu shows that the plurality of first protrusions in the first area are in contact with adjacent ones of the plurality of first protrusions in the second area (fig. 14).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2007/0228107, hereafter “Shimizu ‘107”) & Fukusima et al. (US 4767492, “Fukusima”).
As to claim 4, Shimizu or Park does not specifically mention the pitch of the protrusions. However, Shimizu ‘107 (also directed to ultrasonic joining apparatus) discloses a horn 21/22 welding surface comprising a pattern of protrusions with a substantially uniform pitch, wherein each of the protrusions 21a-22a has a pitch (a) in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 mm (see fig. 3, [0046-0047]), which overlaps with the claimed value of 1.2 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Shimizu ‘107 also teaches that protrusions formed over with uniform interval/pitch produces uniform vibrations for joining the surfaces uniformly [0061]. Similarly, Fukusima (also directed to ultrasonic bonding apparatus) discloses a horn 1 welding surface comprising a pattern of protrusions, wherein a distance/pitch between one end of a protrusion to a like end of adjacent protrusion is in a range of 0.5 to 2 mm (col. 7, lines 62-65) - this is analogous to the recited range of 1.2 to 1.5 mm. Fukusima teaches that the distance/pitch range is determined on the basis of requirements such as maximization of friction heat generation, minimization of bonding period, and the least pressing force (col. 7, lines 62-68). Given teachings of Shimizu ‘107 & Fukusima, artisan of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select the claimed pitch of the protrusions on the welding surface in the horn of Shimizu as necessary on the basis of requirements such as maximization of friction heat generation, minimization of bonding period, pressing force and uniform joining vibrations.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilhalm (US 8651163 & CN-203843363-U, see CN document of record)
As to claim 7, both Shimizu and Park shows that each of the first protrusions and each of the second protrusions has a shape of a quadrangular pyramid, the first protrusion comprises a first outer surface facing the anvil, wherein the first outer surface has a rectangle shape having a first horizontal length extending in a first direction and a vertical second horizontal length extending in a second direction (Shimizu- figs. 13-14; Park- figs. 4-5). Shimizu or Park fails to disclose rhombus shape for the second protrusions. However, varying shapes are known in the art. Wilhalm (US ‘163) teaches the work surface structure of the horn and the anvil including various shapes and determining the suitable shape by optimization to address the related problem and to maximize the benefit/cost ratio (col. 6, lines 14-26). Similar to US ‘163, CN ‘363 is related disclosure by the same inventor Wilhalm and teaches that the protrusion can have any shape selected from square, rectangle, circle, ellipse, triangle, rhombus or deformation thereof (see [0024], [0084]). The rhombus shape includes a first diagonal length is transverse to the first direction and a second diagonal length is transverse to the second direction, the first and second diagonals being are perpendicular to each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have recited second protrusions rhombus shape in the anvil working surface of Shimizu in to provide suitable shape by optimization to address the related problem and to maximize the benefit/cost ratio, as suggested by Wilhalm.
As to claims 8-9, both Shimizu and Park discloses that the horn comprises a first side surface, a second side surface, a third side surface, and a fourth side surface, each of which is in contact with the first welding surface to define an edge (Shimizu- fig. 14; Park- fig. 4). Shimizu fails to disclose the first side surface having a curvature radius greater than at least one of the second, third, or the fourth side surface. However, Wilhalm shows the horn 200 with a first side surface having a curvature radius greater than at least one other side (fig. 2b); the geometric parameters are designed based on the considerations of the horn working space and the feasibility to tune the horn to resonant frequency (col. 6, lines 45-54). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first side surface with a curvature radius greater than other remaining side surfaces in the horn of Shimizu in order to comply with design parameters based on the considerations of the horn working space and the feasibility to tune the horn to resonant frequency, as suggested by Wilhalm.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Current 103 rejection(s) have been modified with respect to the second area indicated in fig. 14 diagram above in Shimizu. Examiner also points out that new rejection has been made against claim 4, which addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
182
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response, examiner first notes that Applicant likely means to refer to [0062[-[0064] in the Shimizu reference, not Fukusima. In addition to a spaced distance between each protruding portion may varying, Shimizu recognizes this spaced distance is of a space of a single protruding portion [0062] – which meets same dimension.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights