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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
The remarks filed on 12/02/2025 are acknowledged and were found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. However, in light of the amendments a new search was conducted and new prior art identified that renders the previous arguments moot. See claims 1, 3-4 and 8 rejections below.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/788,574 in response to the amendments filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1, 3-5 and 8 are under examination. Claim 5 remains withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. JP2019-234058 filed on 12/25/2019 and PCT/JP2020/048733 filed on 12/25/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 06/23/2022, 02/16/2024 and 09/18/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. (US-20150140397-A1) and further in view of Pizhi et al. (JP 2008-163357 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tajima discloses an exterior material for electrical storage devices (see e.g. "multilayer film suitable for an exterior material" in paragraph [0012] and FIG. 2C) comprising a laminate (see e.g. "a laminated structure" in paragraph [0031] and FIG. 2C) including at least a base material layer (see e.g. "a base layer 217" in paragraph [0070] and part number 217 in FIG. 2C), a barrier layer (see e.g. " metal layer 212" in paragraph [0070] and part number 212 in FIG. 2C) and a heat-sealable resin layer (see e.g. "h the heat-seal layer 215" in paragraph [0098] and part number 215 in FIG. 2C) in this order (see e.g. part numbers 217, 212 and 215 in FIG. 2C), the barrier layer including an aluminum alloy foil (see e.g. "As the metal layer, a metal thin film of aluminum" in paragraph [0061]) that satisfies a composition of Fe: 0.5 mass% or more and 2.0 mass% or less (see e.g. "aluminum containing 0.5 to 2.0 wt % of iron is preferred" in paragraph [0061]).
Tajima discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Tajima is silent as to the remaining composition of the aluminum alloy foil and thus does not disclose that it satisfies a composition of Si: 0.5 mass% or less, Fe: 0.2 mass% or more and 2.0 mass% or less and Mg: 1.7 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less, and a tensile strength value of at least 176 at 0°, wherein a total amount of Mn, Cu, Cr, Zn, and Zr in the aluminum alloy foil is 0.40 mass% or less, with each being less than 0.10 mass%.
Pizhi, however, in the same field of endeavor, aluminum alloy foils with varying properties, discloses an aluminum alloy foil (see e.g. "aluminum alloy sheets" in paragraph [3] on page 2 of Pizhi) that satisfies a composition of Si: 0.05 mass% to 0.15 mass%, Fe: 0.05 mass% to 0.30 mass% and Mg: 3.0 mass% to 3.5 mass% (see e.g. "Mg: 3.0 to 3.5 mass%, Fe: 0.05 to 0.3 mass%, Si: 0.05 to 0.15 mass%" in paragraph [11] on page 2 of Pizhi), and a tensile strength value of at least 225 MPa (see e.g. “a tensile strength of 225 MPa or more" in paragraph [12] on page 2 of Pizhi) , wherein a total amount of Mn in the aluminum alloy foil is 0.10 mass% or less (see e.g. "and Mn: 0 to 0.1% by mass" in paragraph [11]on page 2 of Pizhi).
Pizhi expressly limits alloying elements to Mg, Fe, Si, and Mn, with the balance being aluminum and inevitable impurities. Therefore, Pizhi does not disclose intentional addition of Cu, Cr, Zn, or Zr, and such elements, if present, would necessarily be present only as unavoidable impurities. As unavoidable impurities in aluminum alloys the claimed limitation that Mn, Cu, Cr, Zn, and Zr are each less than 0.10 mass% and total less than 0.40 mass% is inherently met. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Pizhi discloses ranges that lie within or overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range or a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Pizhi does not explicitly disclose that the tensile strength value is measured at 0°. However, Pizhi discloses an aluminum alloy foil having no compositional or structural distinction from the aluminum alloy foil claimed in the instant application, as well as an aluminum foil that has a tensile strength greater than 225 MPa. Therefore, the tensile strength of at least 176 MPa at 0° is an inherent property of the disclosed aluminum alloy foil. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Pizhi also teaches that an aluminum alloy foil of this type it is possible to obtain predetermined tensile strength and yield strength as well as an aluminum alloy foil with an excellent formability, an excellent rough skin property and an excellent shape freezing property which would be desirable for use in an exterior material for electrical storage devices (see e.g. paragraph [77] on page 8 of Pizhi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal foil (barrier layer) of Tajima et al. such that it includes an aluminum alloy foil that satisfies a composition of Si: 0.05 mass% to 0.15 mass%, Fe: 0.05 mass% to 0.30 mass% and Mg: 3.0 mass% to 3.5 mass% and a tensile strength value of at least 225 MPa wherein a total amount of Mn in the aluminum alloy foil is 0.10 mass% or less as taught by Pizhi et al. in order to have an aluminum alloy foil with predetermined tensile strength and yield strength as well as excellent properties as suggested by Pizhi.
Regarding Claim 3, Tajima in view of Pizhi discloses the exterior material for electrical storage devices according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Tajima is silent as to the properties of the aluminum alloy foil present and thus does not disclose that the aluminum alloy foil has a tensile strength of 100 MPa or more and an elongation of 10% or more as measured for a JIS No. 5 test piece as specified in JIS Z 2241: 2011.
Pizhi, however, discloses an aluminum alloy foil that has a tensile strength of 225 MPa or more (see e.g. "a tensile strength of 225 MPa or more" in paragraph [12] on page 2 of Pizhi) and an elongation of 26-28% (see e.g. EL (%) in Table 3 on page 13 of Pizhi).
Pizhi discloses ranges that lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Pizhi is silent as to how the elongation is measured and thus does not explicitly disclose that the elongation is measured for a JIS No. 5 test piece as specified in JIS Z 2241: 2011. However, Pizhi discloses an aluminum alloy foil having no compositional or structural distinction from the aluminum alloy foil claimed in the instant application. The recited test method merely specifies a manner of measuring the inherent mechanical properties of the aluminum alloy foil and does not impart any structural or compositional difference to the foil itself. Therefore, the aluminum alloy foil disclosed by Pizhi would inherently exhibit an elongation of 10% or more when measured using a JIS No. 5 test piece as specified in JIS Z 2241: 2011. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, Tajima in view of Pizhi discloses an electrical storage device (see e.g. "a secondary battery 40" in paragraph [0082] of Tajima) in which an electrical storage device element including at least a positive electrode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in paragraph [0079] of Tajima), a negative electrode (see e.g. "a negative electrode" in paragraph [0079] of Tajima) and an electrolyte (see e.g. "an electrolyte" in paragraph [0091] of Tajima) is stored in a packaging formed of the exterior material for electrical storage devices (see e.g. FIGs. 7A - 7E of Tajima) according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Tajima in view of Pizhi discloses an electrical storage device (see e.g. "a secondary battery 40" in paragraph [0082] of Tajima) in which an electrical storage device element including at least a positive electrode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in paragraph [0079] of Tajima), a negative electrode (see e.g. "a negative electrode" in paragraph [0079] of Tajima) and an electrolyte (see e.g. "an electrolyte" in paragraph [0091] of Tajima) is stored in a packaging formed of the exterior material for electrical storage devices (see e.g. FIGs. 7A - 7E of Tajima) according to claim 3 (see e.g. claim 3 rejection above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723