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 .
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 12/17/25.
The applicant argues that Okamatsu does not teach the claimed proportion of columnar crystals or the claimed underlayer thickness, and further changes the scope of the invention by amending the limitations of claim 5 into claim 1. Additionally, the applicant argues that claim 1 exhibits unexpected results in view of table 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant submits that the crystal orientation of Okamatsu does not reasonably correspond the claimed columnar crystal structures. The examiner maintains that the crystal orientation can be reasonably interpreted to read on the alleged limitations as evidenced by Tomomori, US20130086971A1. Tomomori teaches a nickel plating process comprising columnar nickel particles wherein the amount of columnar crystals is described through means of crystal orientation [0023][fig. 2]. Then, the crystal orientation of Okamatsu reasonably reads on the claimed feature in view of the generally understood meaning in the art. Regarding the asserted unexpected results, the results rely on parameters not currently present in the argued claim. For instance, the results of table 1 require the main layer thickness and the underlayer thickness. The evidence must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Then, the evidence is considered to be unpersuasive as claimed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 2 and 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Okamatsu, US20180062121A1.
Regarding claim 1, Okamatsu teaches a secondary battery (battery (2))[0030] comprising:
a battery can (can (21))[fig. 2] having a container-shaped structure and containing a battery device inside (electrodes)[0030]; and
a cover member (electrode terminals (22)(211))[fig. 2] attached to an open surface [fig. 2] of the battery can via a gasket (gasket (27))[fig. 2][0030],
wherein the cover member (terminals (22)(211)) includes a stainless steel coated with a nickel plating (nickel plated stainless steel)[0032], and
the nickel plating has a crystal structure in which a proportion of columnar crystals is greater than or equal to 80 percent (example 10 comprising an orientation of 86.3 %)[0106](nickel particles having a (200) plane crystal orientation 70% or more)[0057]
wherein the columnar crystals comprise crystals each having, in a section of the nickel plating, a crystal height (roughness 0.1 – 0.8 μm)[0037] of greater than or equal to one-third a thickness of the nickel plating in a thickness direction (nickel plating thickness 0.5 – 3.5 μm)[0018] of the nickel plating. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05 I].
a crystal width (roughness 0.1 – 0.8 μm)[0037] of greater than or equal to one-tenth the thickness of the nickel plating (nickel plating thickness 0.5 – 3.5 μm)[0018] in an in-plane direction of the nickel plating. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 2, Okamatsu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the nickel plating coats an entire surface including an end face of the stainless steel [0050].
Regarding claim 6, Okamatsu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery can has a cylindrical shape [fig. 1].
Regarding claim 7, Okamatsu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery [0077].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamatsu, US20180062121A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horie, US20210268770A1.
Regarding claim 3, Okamatsu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1,
A main layer (plating layer (12))[0063] provided on the underlayer and having a thickness of greater than or equal to 2.1 micrometers and less than or equal to 4.0 micrometers (0.5 μm – 3.5 μm)[0063]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05 I] wherein the nickel plating includes an underlayer (underlying layer)[0061].
Okamatsu does not teach the under layer having a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers and less than or equal to 0.8 micrometers.
Horie teaches a nickel plating comprising a main layer (12) and an under layer (underlying layer (13)) formed on a metal base material (11)[0053]. Horie teaches the under layer to have a thickness of 1.2 – 1.4 um. Further, Horie teaches that the under layer provides corrosion resistance [0065] when provided underneath a roughened main layer [0065]. The amount of nickel plating contributes to the thickness of the underlying layer [0064] and improves adhesion [0053]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed thickness of the underlayer of Okamatsu in view of Horie to reduce corrosion and improve adhesion.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamatsu, US20180062121A1 as applied to claim 1 above, Enomoto, US20210119286A1.
Regarding claim 4, Okamatsu teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Okamatsu does not teach wherein the cover member has an opening, and a proportion of an opening area of the opening is greater than or equal to 9 percent and less than or equal to 12 percent, with respect to a sectional area of an internal space defined by the battery can and the cover member.
Enomoto teaches a secondary battery [0002] comprising a battery can (22)[0028] comprising a cover member (sealing body (11))[0028][fig. 1] wherein the cover member (11) has an opening (holes covered by thin walled portions (12a))[fig. 5] , and a proportion of an opening area of the opening is greater than or equal to 9 percent and less than or equal to 12 percent, with respect to a sectional area of an internal space defined by the battery can and the cover member (10 – 40% area)[0031]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists [MPEP 2144.05 I]. Further, Enomoto teaches the opening to allow for the cover member to deform more stably when internal pressure increases [0032]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the opening of Enomoto into the battery of Okamatsu to increase stability during pressurization.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights