Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/073,848

WELDING HORN AND WELDING DEVICE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 07, 2025
Examiner
GAMINO, CARLOS J
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allow Rate
257 granted / 729 resolved
-29.7% vs TC avg
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+46.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
771
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 729 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 9, 10, and 17 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. Claim 9 recites, “a second side surface… facing the first side surface”. It is unclear as to how surfaces on opposing sides of the same member can be facing each; i.e. surfaces (214_3) and (214-5) in figure 3 appear to be facing away from each other. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as surfaces arranged similar to surfaces (214_3) and (214-5) in figure 3 will meet this limitation. Claim 17 recites “the tip portion is positioned to fit with the first corner portion”. It is unclear as to how or in which manner these are to fit. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as noted in the rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1, 2, 9, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 119864580 A). Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses: A welding horn [welding head (400); figure 16] comprising: a body portion [cylindrical component in figure 16] extending in a first direction; and an extension portion [the portion/working end of the welding head (400) shown in figure 14] extending in a second direction crossing the first direction from an end of the body portion, and is configured to pressurize a welding object connected to an electrode assembly, the extension portion comprising: a lower surface [second surface (92), the total width of the welding face of the working end which includes first surface/protrusion (91); figure 15] facing the welding object; a first corner portion [right corner in figure 14] connected to one end of the lower surface and facing the electrode assembly; a first side surface [right vertical side in figure 14] extending from the first corner portion to the body portion [see figure 16]; and a tip portion [the right first surface (91)] protruding from the lower surface and contacting the welding object, the tip portion being offset from a center of the lower surface toward the first corner portion [see figure 14]. Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses: A welding device [ultrasonic welding device (2000); figure 14] comprising: an anvil [welding seat (500); figure 14] on which a lead tab and a strip terminal are arranged to overlap each other; and a welding horn [welding head (400); figures 14-16] configured to apply ultrasonic waves while pressurizing an overlapping surface of the lead tab and the strip terminal arranged on the anvil, the welding horn comprising: a body portion [cylindrical component in figure 16] extending in a first direction; and an extension portion [the portion the portion/working end of the welding head (400) shown in figure 14] extending in a second direction crossing the first direction from an end of the body portion, and is configured to pressurize a welding object connected to an electrode assembly, the extension portion comprising: a lower surface [second surface (92), the total width of the welding face of the working end which includes first surface/protrusion (91); figure 15] facing the overlapping surface; a first corner portion [right corner in figure 14] connected to one end of the lower surface and facing the lead tab; a first side surface [right vertical side in figure 14] extending from the first corner portion to the body portion [see figure 16]; and a tip portion [the right first surface (91)] protruding from the lower surface and contacting the overlapping surface, the tip portion being offset from a center of the lower surface toward the first corner portion [see figure 14]. Regarding claims 2 and 15, Wu discloses: wherein the first corner portion is in a form of a curved surface having a curvature [see figure 14]. Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches: wherein the extension portion further comprises: a second corner portion [left corner in figure 14] connected to another end of the lower surface; and a second side surface [left vertical side in figure 14] extending from the second corner portion to the body portion [see figure 16], and facing the first side surface [see figure 14], and wherein the second corner portion is in a form of a curved surface having a curvature [see figure 14]. Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses: wherein the tip portion comprises a plurality of protrusions arranged in at least one row [other first surface shapes such as a diamond shaped reticulated surface may be used; pg. 27 and figure 17]. Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses: wherein a height of each of the plurality of protrusions along the second direction is 0.15 mm to 0.4 mm [0.05-0.2 mm; pg. 27]. Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses: wherein the tip portion is positioned to fit with the first corner portion [the first surface and right corner fit together in that they are parts of the portion of the welding head (400) shown in figure 14]. 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 3, 4, 6-8, and 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 119864580 A) as applied to claim 1, 2, 14, and 15 above. Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Wu does not teach: wherein a radius of the curvature of the first/second corner portion is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. However, Wu teaches radii R1 and R2 are 0.2-0.5 mm and this prevents cracking of the workpiece; pg. 26, and figures 13 and 14 depict the left and right corners having a radius similar to that of the radii of the first surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the left and right corners with a similar radius in order to prevent cracking in the workpiece, due to aesthetics, or because the figures suggest they are about the same size. Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches: wherein the tip portion is positioned to be in contact with the first corner portion [first surface (91) is in contact with the right corner via second surface (92)]. Regarding claims 6 and 19, Wu does not teach: wherein a width of the lower surface along the first direction is 0.9 mm to 1.6 mm. However, figures 14-17 suggest the width of the second surface is about 4-5 times that of the right first surface, wherein the first surface can have a radius and height of 0.2 mm, and thus suggests a second surface width of 1.6 mm or less since the width of the first surface can be less. Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the width of second surface of the working end the claimed width in order to weld the workpieces at hand. Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches: wherein a width of the tip portion along the first direction is 0.3 mm to 0.8 mm [0.2-0.5 mm; pg. 26]. Wu and the claims differ in that Wu does not teach the exact same ranges as recited in the instant claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time/before the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Wu overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003); In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974), and MPEP 2144.05. This reasoning applies to any claim and limitation in this action where a range is being claimed. Regarding claims 8 and 20, Wu does not teach: wherein a width of the lower surface along the first direction is 1.125 to 5.34 times a width of the tip portion. However, figures 14-17 suggest the width of the second surface is about 4-5 times that of the right first surface, wherein the first surface can have a radius and height of 0.2 mm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the second surface width 4-5 times that of the right first surface since this is a suggested option. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 119864580 A) or Wu et al. (CN 119864580 A) in view of Zhong et al. (US 2024/0100622 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 9 above, where applicable, and further in view of Hyun et al. (KR 2024166308 A). Regarding claims 5 and 18, Wu does not teach: wherein the tip portion is spaced from the first side surface by 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm, based on the first direction. However, this range is equal to radius of the curvature of the first corner as recited in claim 3 and as noted above in the rejection of claim 3 this range is obvious. Hyun teaches placing welding portion (100) at the end of the curvature of the left corner; see figure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the right first surface in the same manner as taught by Hyun since this a known option, to reduce the size of the second surface, or to increase the space between the first surfaces. Thus, one placing first surface as noted above at a corner as noted in the rejection of claim 3 would meet this claim. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 119864580 A) as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Zhong et al. (US 2024/0100622 A1). Regarding claim 12, Wu does not teach: wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a convexly curved shape. However, Wu is open to other first surface/protrusion shapes such as a diamond shaped reticulated surface; pg. 27. Zhong teaches an ultrasonic machine wherein welding head (30) comprises opposing bodies (32) and second action portions (34) and the portion has spherical teeth (141), which are wear reducing when compared to pointed teeth; 0047-0048 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate any known protrusion shape into Wu, including that of Zhong, minus any unexpected results. One would have been motivated to incorporate the spherical protrusion in order to concentrate the welding energy into smaller areas, reduce wear, and/or for aesthetics. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6. 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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. /CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 /KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599982
Method of Brazing Golf Club Components
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583054
ADAPTIVE TOOL HOLDER FOR ROBOTIC ARM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569925
SOLDER JETTING HEAD CAPABLE OF ABSORBING IMPACT, AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12521822
SN SOLDER PASTE COMPRISING CU-CO METAL PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12508664
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A PLATE HEAT EXCHANGER AND PLATE HEAT EXCHANGER WITH THERMOCOUPLES OR MEASURING RESISTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+46.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 729 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month