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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/04/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are canceled and Claims 7-19 are new.
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 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 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 8 recites the Ni-Co-Fe alloy layer and does not recite any other layers. The alloy layer has an outermost surface side. The Co concentration “is highest at a position which is on an outermost surface side … which is between the outermost surface and a depth of 100 nm.” It is not clear where “relative to a position where a Ni concentration in the Ni-Co-Fe alloy layer is highest” occurs within this layer. Also, since the Ni concentration increases between a position where the Co concentration is highest and the outermost surface, it is unclear how the depth of Co concentration can be determined if it has a greater depth than the Ni concentration.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-094543 A, based on the machine translation, in view of Zhou et al in International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
JP 2019-094543 A (JP ‘543) teaches a stainless steel sheet with an area fraction of 95% or more ferrite (abstract). The remainder may be bainite (page 6). The oxide layers on the NCF coated steels were divided into five parts after oxidation including (from the outermost layer) Co3O4 spinel, (Co,Fe)3O4 spinel, and (Ni,Co,Fe)3O4 spinel (page 39462). However, JP ‘543 does not teach a Ni-Co-Fe alloy layer as claimed.
Zhou et al teaches preparing a 10% Fe doped Ni-Co (NCF) alloy on a steel substrate by electroplating (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electroplate the NCF alloy on the stainless steel sheet in JP ‘543, since Zhou et al teaches improved electrical performance and reduced oxidation rate (page 39467).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111455273 A, based on the machine translation, in view of Zhou et al.
CN 111455273 A (CN ‘273) teaches a steel substrate made by hot rolling (page 3), which reads on a sheet, comprising not less than 98.75% ferrite, less than or equal to 1.05% pearlite, and less than or equal to 0.2% cementite (page 2). However, CN ‘273 does not teach a Ni-Co-Fe alloy layer as claimed.
Zhou et al teaches preparing a 10% Fe doped Ni-Co (NCF) alloy on a steel substrate by electroplating (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electroplate the NCF alloy on the stainless steel sheet in CN ‘273, since Zhou et al teaches improved electrical performance and reduced oxidation rate (page 39467).
Regarding Claim 19, CN ‘273 teaches the following composition (abstract) with respect to the instant claim:
Component
mass%
Claim 19
CN ‘273
C
0.045-0.065
0.03-0.06
Si
0.020 or less
0-0.03
Mn
0.25-0.35
0.15-0.3
P
0.020 or less
0-0.02
S
0.004-0.022
0-0.010
sol Al
0.005-0.025
0.02-0.06
N
0.0040 or less
0-0.005
B
0.0015-0.0025
0.0015-0.0025
Nb
0-0.0050
reads on zero
Ti
0-0.010
reads on zero
CN ‘273 does not teach any other components. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizu et al (US 9,828,648 B2) in view of Nakano et al (US 12,448,697 B2).
Kizu et al teaches a steel sheet for a battery container (column 1, lines 18 and 19). The area ratio of ferrite is 95% or more, and the other phases include pearlite, cementite, and bainite (column 8, lines 25-33). However, Kizu et al does not teach a Ni-Co-Fe alloy layer as claimed.
Nakano et al teaches a surface-treated steel sheet comprising a nickel-cobalt-iron diffusion layer formed on the steel sheet (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the steel sheet of Kizu et al, since Nakano et al teaches excellent battery characteristics and suppressing a reduction in battery characteristics after a lapse of time (column 1, lines 57-60).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakano et al teaches the intensities for Ni, Co, and Fe are measured from the surface of the diffusion layer in the depth direction (column 2, lines 25-48). In Fig. 8(A), the intensities for Ni, Co, and Fe were measured in the depth direction from the surface of the diffusion layer toward the steel sheet. Co has the greatest intensity between the surface and 0.2 μm (200 nm). The greatest intensity of Ni is between 4-6 μm, which is a greater depth than the greatest intensity of Co.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Fig. 8(A) represents intensities of about 0.6 for Ni and about 1.7 for Co, which represents a ratio of about 3.
Regarding Claim 10, Fig. 8(A) represents intensities of about 0.6 for Ni and about 1.7 for Co, which represents a ratio of about 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the Ni content 0.2-7.0 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 12, the Ni content 0.2-7.0 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 13, the Ni content 0.2-7.0 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 14, the Ni content 0.2-7.0 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 15, the Ni content 0.2-12.5 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 16, the Ni content 0.2-12.5 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 17, the Ni content 0.2-12.5 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding Claim 18, the Ni content 0.2-12.5 g/m2 and the Co content is 0.2 g/m2 or more (column 3, lines 2-9).
Regarding the ranges in Claims 9-18, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takahashi et al (US 11,352,682 B2) teaches a surface-treated steel sheet with a Ni-Co-Fe (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights