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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding application 19/232,885 to Liu et al., assigned to Contemporary Amperex Technology, Hong Kong, China, filed 06/10/2025 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2025/0309497 on 10/02/2025, is in response to applicant's request for continued examination, RCE, and claims amendment filed 05/04/2026. Applicant's response has been given full consideration.
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 in this application 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the RCE response filed 05/04/2026 applicant has amended the claims of the application. Claim 1 has been amended by incorporation of limitations of claim 5 and 19. The method claim 8 has been amended by of new limitations regarding the tabs and the connecting member. Limitations of claims 9 and 10 have also been added to claim 8.
The status of the claims stand as follows:
Currently amended 1, 6-8
Previously presented 2-4,15-18, 20
Canceled 5, 9-10, 19
Original 11-14
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-18, 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim 1-2, 4, 6-8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0299432) in view of Thomas et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0193818), Kohiki et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0036010) and Fukuzawa et al (U.S.PG Publication 2004/0161667)
Regarding Claims 1 and 8 Kwon discloses a battery cell and method of manufacturing (Kwon paragraph 0005, 0015), the battery comprising an electrode assembly have a structure in which a plurality of positive electrodes 110 and negative electrodes 120 are stacked in a thickness direction (Kwon paragraph 0018, 0027), the thickness direction is equivalent to the first direction; the positive electrode and the negative electrode each including a current collector (Kwon paragraph 0018), an active material layer formed on the current collector (Kwon paragraph 0012), wherein an electrode tab 115, 125 protrudes from at least an outer periphery of one side of each of a plurality of positive electrodes 110 and a plurality of negative electrodes 120, the electrode tabs of the stacked electrode plates form a bundle and being coupled to each other in tight contact in a stacking direction (Kwon Fig. 1, paragraph 0018), and the tabs are portions of the current collector extending beyond the active material layer in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, i.e. the thickness direction (Kwon Fig. 1) equivalent to the tabs are stacked in a first direction and are connected to the current collector. Kwon discloses at least one through-hole 117, 127, is formed through the electrode tab bundle 190 (Kwon Fig. 1,4, paragraph 0018), equivalent to each of the tabs is provided with a through-hole. The tabs provided with the through hole are bundled together, and, therefore, the through holes are adjacent to each other, considered equivalent to be in communication with each other as recited in claim 8. Kwon discloses a connection member 210 made of an electrically conductive material is inserted through the through-hole 117, 127, and an electrode lead 310, 320, 330, 340 is electrically connected to the electrode tab bundle via the connection member (Kwon Fig. 1, 4, 5, paragraph 0018), equivalent to at least being arranged on at least one side of the corresponding tab in the first direction. The connection member is equivalent to the connecting member, and the electrode lead is equivalent to the adapter component.
Kwon is silent about the tensile strength of the connecting member is less than a tensile strength of the current collector. Kwon discloses the connection member may be made of a low- melting metal or metal alloy (Kwon paragraph 0012, 0020, 0035, 0062) the metal having a melting point of 60 °C to 250 °C (Kwon paragraph 0075); thus, will have a tensile strength that is low. Kwon also discloses the current collector is made of metal layer (Kwon paragraph 0023), but Kwon is silent about the specific metal used as current collector. Kohiki discloses a negative electrode current collector for secondary battery (Kohiki Title, Abstract) the electrolytic copper foil (equivalent to the current collector) having a high normal tensile strength and low decrease in the tensile strength after thermal treatment (Kohiki paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the copper foil of Kohiki in the battery cell of Kwon since it provided a strong current collector whose tensile strength is less affected by heat treatment and to have made the current collector of a metal that is high melting and having high tensile strength for the benefit of added rigidity of the electrode assembly, and as a consequence of the battery cell as compared to the low melting connecting member that may be melted when the temperature of the battery cell is increased whereby the electrode lead and the electrode tab bundle in a state of being coupled to each other may be separated from each other (Kwon para graph 0035); thus, preventing hazardous condition. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Kwon discloses that conventionally a welding method is used to couple electrode tab bundle and electrode lead to each other (Kwon paragraph 0011).
Kwon discloses connecting the connecting member and the electrode tabs can be made conventionally by welding such as ultrasonic welding or laser welding (Kwon paragraph 0011, 0053), but is silent about using a roller welding. Thomas discloses welding of a battery tab onto a busbar, considered equivalent to a connecting member, by a welding method that includes a rolling element to compress the tab against the busbar and a welding device that welds the tab and busbar compressed together by the roller (Thomas paragraph 0042), equivalent to the roller welding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used roller welding in the battery of Kwon to weld the connecting member (equivalent to the bus bar) to the tab by roller welding to ensure that the tab and connecting member are well pressed together and in good contact while welding. According to MPEP this constitutes the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC).
Kwon is silent about the connection member 210 is connected to the electrode lead 310, 320, 330, 340 through ultrasonic welding. Fukuzawa discloses a bipolar battery comprising plurality of bipolar electrodes, (Fukuzawa paragraph 0015), wherein multiple unit cell layers are stacked (Fukuzawa Fig. 1, paragraph 0042), and the electrode leads are connected through ultrasonic welding conducted at lower temperature (Fukuzawa paragraph 0160). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used ultrasonic welding disclosed by Fukuzawa to connect the connecting members 210 to the electrode lead members 310, 320, 330, 340 in the battery of Kwon for the benefit of conducting the welding at low temperature as taught by Fukuzawa (Fukuzawa 0160). According to MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC).
Regarding the distance between a connecting member and an end of the tab away from the active material layer being less or equal to 5 mm can be optimized by routine experimentation since according to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Regarding claim 2 Kohiki discloses the current collector has a tensile strength of 500 MPa to 750 MPa (Kohiki paragraph 0017). This value is included in the claimed range of 450 MPa to 1500 MPa. The elongation at break, resistivity and thickness of the current collector are characteristics values that can be optimized by routine experimentation. According to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 7 Kwon discloses the electrode plate has electrode mixture layer applied on the current collector (Kwon Fig. 2, paragraph 0058). Kwon is silent about the distance between the connecting member and the active material layer recited in claim 4. Kwon is also silent about the relationships between the areas of the connecting member, area of the tab, area of the through hole, and area between adapter component and connecting member formed by ultrasonic welding as recited in claim 6, and the areas difference recited in claim 7. However, such distances, areas and area differences can be optimized by routine experimentation since according to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Regarding claim 18 Kwon discloses a connection member 210 made of an electrically conductive material is inserted through the through-hole 117, 127 of the electrode tabs 115, 125, (Kwon Fig. 2); thus, extending on both opposing sides of each of the plurality of the electrode tabs.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0299432) in view of Thomas et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0193818), Kohiki et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0036010) and Fukuzawa et al (U.S.PG Publication 2004/0161667) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0246223)
The discussion of Kwon, Thomas, Kohiki and Fukuzawa as applied to claim 1 above is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 13, 14 Kwon is silent about a battery comprising the disclosed battery cell and manufactured by the disclosed manufacturing method and a power consuming apparatus comprising the battery. Wu discloses a battery cell, a battery and electricity consuming device (Wu paragraph 0004, 0020, 0021). Wu discloses the battery may be used to supply electrical power to a vehicle (Wu paragraph 0055), the vehicle being equivalent to the power consuming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the battery cell of Kwon as modified by Kohiki in a battery used to supply power to a power consuming apparatus to supply electrical power as disclosed by Wu (Wu paragraph 0055). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC).
Claims 3, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0299432) in view of Thomas et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0193818), Kohiki et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0036010) and Fukuzawa et al (U.S.PG Publication 2004/0161667) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Suga et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0248116)
The discussion of Kwon, Thomas, Kohiki and Fukuzawa as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this region.
Regarding claim 3 Kwon discloses the connecting member is made of low melting metal and may be an alloy of two or more of bismuth, tin, lead, cadmium, zinc, and indium (Kwon paragraph 0062), all known to be low tensile strength metal. But Kwon is silent about the material of the electrode lead considered equivalent to the connecting member. Suga discloses a lithium ion battery including a power generating element that includes at least one positive electrode plate, at least one negative electrode plate and at least one separator (Suga paragraph 0007, 0012, 0014). The positive electrode plate 13 is connected to a positive electrode lead 12, and the negative electrode plate 16 is connected to a negative electrode lead 15, the positive electrode lead 12 and the negative electrode lead 15 are connected to one side of the rectangular power generating element 11 (Suga paragraph 0024), the electrode lead is considered equivalent to the adapter component and the connecting member. Suga disclose a preferred example of the positive electrode lead is an aluminum plate, and a preferred example of the negative electrode lead is a copper plate, and in some cases, these leads may contain other metal such as nickel (Suga paragraph 0025), all three metals recited in claim 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used metals such as aluminum, copper and nickel disclosed by Suga as electrode leads as the connecting member in the battery of Kwon since such metal are excellent conductors and can easily be connected by welding to the power generating electrode assembly that have the same metals as current collectors. According to MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC).
The elongation at break, the resistivity and thickness of the connecting member are characteristics values that can be optimized my routine experimentation. According to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claims 15 and 16 Kwon discloses the connecting member may be made of low melting metal (Kwon paragraph 0062), but is silent about the material of the electrode lead considered equivalent to the adapter component. Suga discloses a lithium ion battery including a power generating element that includes at least one positive electrode plate, at least one negative electrode plate and at least one separator (Suga paragraph 0007, 0012, 0014). The positive electrode plate 13 is connected to a positive electrode lead 12, and the negative electrode plate 16 is connected to a negative electrode lead 15, the positive electrode lead 12 and the negative electrode lead 15 are connected to one side of the rectangular power generating element 11 (Suga paragraph 0024), the electrode lead is considered equivalent to the adapter component and the connecting member. Suga disclose a preferred example of the positive electrode lead is an aluminum plate, and a preferred example of the negative electrode lead is a copper plate, and in some cases, these leads may contain other metal such as nickel (Suga paragraph 0025), all three metals recited in claims 15, 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used metals such as aluminum, copper and nickel disclosed by Suga as electrode leads as the adapter component and the connecting member in the battery of Kwon since such metal are excellent conductors and can easily be connected by welding to the power generating electrode assembly that have the same metals as current collectors. According to MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0299432) in view of Thomas et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0193818), Kohiki et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0036010) and Fukuzawa et al (U.S.PG Publication 2004/0161667) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Noguchi et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0076486)
The discussion of Kwon, Thomas, Kohiki and Fukuzawa as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this region.
Regarding claim 17 Kwon and Kohiki are silent about the current collector comprise at least one of stainless steel and nickel-iron alloy. Noguchi discloses a secondary battery (Noguchi Title, Abstract, paragraph 0016), and stainless steel, mentioned among other metals, to be preferable for negative electrode current collector in terms of electrochemical stability (Noguchi paragraph 0075, 0098). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used stainless steel as a negative electrode current collector in the battery of Kwon as modified by Kohiki for the benefit of its electrochemical stability as taught by Noguchi (Noguchi paragraph 0075). According to MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0299432) in view of Thomas et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0193818), Kohiki et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0036010) and Fukuzawa et al (U.S.PG Publication 2004/0161667) as applied to claim 1, and further in view Li et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0102698)
The discussion of Kwon, Thomas, Kohiki and Fukuzawa as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 20 Kwon as modified by Kohiki is silent regarding the current collector is a composite current collector comprising a polymer material substrate layer and a metal layer formed on the surface of the polymer material substrate.
Li discloses a an electrode plate and an electrochemical apparatus (Li paragraph 0008), where the electrode plate uses a composite current collector and wherein an electrode active material is provided on the surface of the current collector (Li paragraph 0013, 0062), and because the composite current collector has a relatively thin conductive layer and the support layer includes the polymer material or the polymer composite material, energy density of the electrochemical apparatus can be significantly improved, such as weight energy density (Li paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used a composite current collector in the battery of Kwon as modified by Kohiki for the benefit of obtaining a battery with significantly improved energy density as disclosed by Li (Li paragraph 0013). According to MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC).
Response to Argument
Applicant presents the details of the instant invention as recited in the amended claims and indicates the support for the amendment as disclosed in the instant specification. Applicant then presents the rejection of the claims as presented in the final Office action. Applicant also acknowledges the advisory action of 04/30/2026. Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims presented in the previous final Office action.
As presented above in this Office action the rejection of the claims has been modified as necessary to address the amendment of the claims and the cancelation of other claims. Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims and argues that regarding the welding of the adapter component and the connecting members Kwon does not disclose ultrasonic welding, and roller welding and relying on Fukuzawa does not cure the deficiency of Kwon. Examiner notes that Fukuzawa relies upon the ultrasonic welding conducted at lower temperature, and thus it would be obvious to modify Kwon who teaches melting the connection members. Fukuzawa specifically teaches ultrasonic welding that is conducted at a low temperature, and can be different than the conventional ultrasonic method that Kwon has disclosed can be a source of contamination by impurities generated during conventional ultrasonic welding method. Thus, Fukuzawa low-melting welding method would offer the desired low-temperature melting of Kwon. Kwon teach that conventionally welding connection for electrode tabs can be used, and Fukuzawa offer such a method as low-melting method. Thus, the use of low melting ultrasonic welding would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of the teaching of Fukuzawa. Further, using other forms of welding such as roller welding as disclosed by newly applied reference of Thomas would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill.
Regarding the limitation of the distance between the connecting member and end of the tab is less than 5 mm as recited in amended claim 1 it is noted in the Office action that the claimed distance can be arrived at by routine optimization experiment since the two components the connecting member and the tab are connected and in the close proximity it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary to keep the distance between them to a minimum and such a distance can be arrived at by a routine optimization experiment.
Regarding the rejection of claim 8 applicant argues that the Kwon as noted above does not disclose the welding method as recited. Examiner notes that the response above for claim 1 is fully extended to the rejection of claim 8.
Examiner notes that the combined teaching of the applied reference as presented in this Office action renders the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights