LEAD MEMBER
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 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 3 discloses a magnitude of an angle BAC. However, Fig. 10 discloses two different angles of BAC which can comprise B2A2C2 and B1A1C1. Which one is being claimed?
Claims 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iizuka et al. (JP 2013-171738 A).
Regarding claim 1, Iizuka et al. teach a lead member (Abstract) comprising:
a lead conductor (Figs. 4a and 4b, element 18 discloses a lead member.) having a first main surface and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface (See annotated figure 4b below.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs 4 a and 4b of Iizuka
a resin portion that covers the first main surface, the second main surface, and two side surfaces that are between both ends of the lead conductor; while exposing the both ends of the lead conductor in a first direction (Figs. 4a and 4b disclose a sealing portion, element 23, which covers the first and second main surfaces (see annotated figure above) and the sides. Further, element 25 indicates exposed portions in opposite directions.)
wherein the lead conductor includes:
a metal substrate (Fig. 4b, element 21), and
a surface treatment layer formed on at least a portion of a surface of the metal substrate (Figs. 4a and 4b, element 22 disclose a corrosion resistant thin film coating layer.), the surface treatment layer including chromium, oxygen, and fluorine (Paragraph 0021 disclose the corrosion resistant thin film coating layer, element 22, is chemically treated with a trivalent chromium fluoride compound, CrF3.). However, Iizuka does not disclose wherein a moisture content of a portion of the surface treatment layer exposed from the resin portion, as measured by coulometric Karl Fischer titration at a vaporization temperature of 220°C, is 5.0 µg/cm2 or less.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Iizuka et al. teach a lead member (Abstract) comprising:
a lead conductor (Figs. 4a and 4b, element 18 discloses a lead member.) having a first main surface and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface (See annotated figure 4b below.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs 4 a and 4b of Iizuka
a resin portion that covers the first main surface, the second main surface, and two side surfaces that are between both ends of the lead conductor; while exposing the both ends of the lead conductor in a first direction (Figs. 4a and 4b disclose a sealing portion, element 23, which covers the first and second main surfaces (see annotated figure above) and the sides. Further, element 25 indicates exposed portions in opposite directions.)
wherein the lead conductor includes:
a metal substrate (Fig. 4b, element 21), and
a surface treatment layer formed on at least a portion of a surface of the metal substrate (Figs. 4a and 4b, element 22 disclose a corrosion resistant thin film coating layer.), the surface treatment layer including chromium, oxygen, and fluorine (Paragraph 0021 disclose the corrosion resistant thin film coating layer, element 22, is chemically treated with a trivalent chromium fluoride compound, CrF3.). However, Iizuka does not disclose wherein, for a portion of the surface treatment layer exposed from the resin portion, a value of a parameter that is obtained by dividing, by a chromium content (µg/cm2) per unit area, an integrated value of peak intensity in a wave number range of greater than or equal to 2750 cm-1 and less than or equal to 3700 cm-1 in a reflection infrared spectrum is 10.0 or less.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 3, Iizuka et al. teach a lead member (Abstract) comprising:
a lead conductor (Figs. 4a and 4b, element 18 discloses a lead member.) having a first main surface and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface (See annotated figure 4b below.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs 4 a and 4b of Iizuka
a resin portion that covers the first main surface, the second main surface, and two side surfaces that are between both ends of the lead conductor; while exposing the both ends of the lead conductor in a first direction (Figs. 4a and 4b disclose a sealing portion, element 23, which covers the first and second main surfaces (see annotated figure above) and the sides. Further, element 25 indicates exposed portions in opposite directions.)
wherein the lead conductor includes:
a metal substrate (Fig. 4b, element 21), and
a surface treatment layer formed on at least a portion of a surface of the metal substrate (Figs. 4a and 4b, element 22 disclose a corrosion resistant thin film coating layer.), the surface treatment layer including chromium, oxygen, and fluorine (Paragraph 0021 disclose the corrosion resistant thin film coating layer, element 22, is chemically treated with a trivalent chromium fluoride compound, CrF3.). However, Iizuka does not disclose wherein, in an X-ray absorption spectrum for a portion of the surface treatment layer exposed from the resin portion, when one division on a horizontal axis indicates X-ray energy of 1 eV, and one division on a vertical axis indicates X-ray absorption of 0.1, a magnitude of an angle BAC is 17 degrees or less, where, for the X-ray absorption spectrum, a point A is a point at which the X-ray energy is 6008 eV, a point B is a point at which the X-ray energy is 6011 eV, and a point C is a point at which the X-ray energy is 6016 eV, and wherein a length of the one division on the horizontal axis is equal to a length of the one division on the vertical axis.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 4, 10, 11, Iizuka et al. teach the lead member according to claims 1-3, wherein the surface treatment layer is an inorganic layer (Paragraphs 0021 and 0025 discloses the corrosion resistant thin film coating layer comprises chromium (III) fluoride, which is inorganic due to chromium.).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 13, Iizuka et al. teach the lead member according to claims 1-3, wherein the surface treatment layer is free of C (Paragraphs 0021 and 0025 disclose chromium (III) fluoride which is free of carbon.).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 15, Iizuka et al. teach the lead member according to claims 1-3, wherein the surface treatment layer is provided at least between the metal substrate and the resin portion (Fig. 4b discloses the corrosion resistant thin film coating layer, element 22 is between the metal substrate, element 21, and the sealing layer, element 23.).
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 17, Iizuka et al. teach the lead member according to claims 1-3, wherein the surface treatment layer is provided on an entirety of the first main surface and the second main surface (Fig. 4b shows element 22 surrounding the first main surface and the second main surface. See annotated figure 4b below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs 4 a and 4b of Iizuka
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 19, Iizuka et al. teach the lead member according to claims 1-3, wherein the metal substrate is formed of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, nickel, a nickel alloy, copper, a copper alloy, nickel-plated aluminum, a nickel-plated aluminum alloy, nickel-plated copper, a nickel-plated copper alloy, nickel clad aluminum, a nickel clad aluminum alloy, nickel clad copper, or a nickel clad copper alloy (Paragraph 0224 discloses element 21 can comprise aluminum for the positive electrode and nickel plated copper for the negative electrode.).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Iizuka et al. teach the lead member according to claims 1 and 2, wherein the resin portion includes polypropylene (Paragraphs 0029; 0033 discloses the sealing layer can comprise polypropylene.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 February 12th, 2026
Prosecution Insights