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
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the surface treatment layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 should depend on claim 2, rather than claim 1.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihisa (JP 2001/202932 A, published 27 Jul. 2001, hereinafter Yoshihisa) in view of Ishizuka et al. (US Patent Application 2015/0037684 A1, published 05 Feb. 2015, hereinafter Ishizuka).
Regarding claims 1-12, Yoshihisa teaches a package for an enclosed type battery comprising an iron alloy as a core material on which a synthetic resin is disposed (Abstract). Yoshihisa teaches the metal foil has a thickness of 50 µm or less (claim 3). Yoshihisa teaches his sealed battery package is formed in a bag (pouch) shape (claim 6).
Yoshihisa does not disclose the claimed steel foil.
Ishizuka teaches a steel foil, in which the steel comprises 0.0001 – 0.02 mass% carbon, 0.01 to 0.3 mass% manganese, 0.001 to 0.02 mass% phosphorus, 0.0001 to 0.01 mass% sulfur, 0.0005 to 0.1 mass% aluminum, 0.0001 to 0.004 mass% nitrogen, and the balance iron and impurities, wherein the thickness of the steel foil is 5 to 15 µm (Abstract). Ishizuka teaches his steel foil further includes 0.1 mass% or less of titanium and 0.1 mass% or less of niobium (paragraph 0036). Ishizuka teaches the steel foil is cold rolled, nickel and chromium plated, and then annealed (paragraphs 0045, 0082, and 0086 and Figure 1). Ishizuka teaches a surface treatment comprising a nickel plating amount of 1 g/m2 or more and a chromium plating amount of 0.01 g/m2 or more (paragraphs 0088-0089). Ishizuka teaches his steel foil is used as a component in a secondary battery (paragraph 0113).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of carbon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, aluminum, titanium, and niobium, amounts of nickel and chromium plating, and thickness of the steel foil from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Ishizuka because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Ishizuka does not disclose maximum principal strains in uniaxial deformation, planar deformation, nor equal biaxial deformation. However, given that the steel foil taught by Ishizuka has the same composition, thickness, and processing steps, within the overlapping ranges, the steel foil of Ishizuka would inherently have the same maximum principal strains in uniaxial deformation, planar deformation, and equal biaxial deformation as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed ranges for maximum principal strains in uniaxial deformation, planar deformation, nor equal biaxial deformation.
Given that Yoshihisa and Ishizuka are drawn to steel foils for battery components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the steel foil taught by Ishizuka as the steel foil in the battery container taught by Yoshihisa. Since Yoshihisa and Ishizuka are both drawn to steel foils for battery components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the steel foil taught by Ishizuka as the steel foil in the battery container taught by Yoshihisa. Further, Ishizuka teaches his steel foil has both strength and electrical resistance, which are normally in a trade-off relationship, and his steel foil is thin, lightweight, and economical (paragraph 033).
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihisa (JP 2001/202932 A, published 27 Jul. 2001, hereinafter Yoshihisa) in view of Unno et al. (US Patent Application 2018/0237882 A1, published 23 Aug. 2018).
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12, Yoshihisa teaches a package for an enclosed type battery comprising an iron alloy as a core material on which a synthetic resin is disposed (Abstract). Yoshihisa teaches the metal foil has a thickness of 50 µm or less (claim 3). Yoshihisa teaches his sealed battery package is formed in a bag (pouch) shape (claim 6).
Yoshihisa does not disclose the claimed steel foil.
Unno teaches an austenitic stainless steel foil for use in a battery case (Abstract and paragraphs 0036). Unno teaches his steel comprises 0.080 mass% or less of carbon, 2.0 mass% or less of silicon, 2.0 mass% or less of manganese, 0.045 mass% or less of phosphorus, 0.030 mass% or less of sulfur, 5.0 to 11.0 mass% of nickel, 15.0 to 20.0 mass% of chromium, 0.30 mass% or less of molybdenum, 0.05 mass% or less of sulfur, 0.05 mass% nitrogen, 0.50 to 2.50 mass% of copper, with the balance consisting of iron and unavoidable impurities (paragraph 0040). Unno teaches his steel foil has a thickness of 60 µm or less (Abstract). Unno teaches his steel foil is cold rolled before a final annealing (paragraph 0093).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of carbon, molybdenum, phosphorus, and sulfur and a thickness of the steel foil from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Unno because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Unno does not disclose maximum principal strains in uniaxial deformation, planar deformation, nor equal biaxial deformation. However, given that the steel foil taught by Unno has the same composition, thickness, and processing steps, within the overlapping ranges, the steel foil of Unno would inherently have the same maximum principal strains in uniaxial deformation, planar deformation, and equal biaxial deformation as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed ranges for maximum principal strains in uniaxial deformation, planar deformation, nor equal biaxial deformation.
Given that Yoshihisa and Unno are drawn to steel foils for battery packaging, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the steel foil taught by Unno as the steel foil in the battery container taught by Yoshihisa. Since Yoshihisa and Unno are both drawn to steel foils for battery packaging, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the steel foil taught by Unno as the steel foil in the battery container taught by Yoshihisa. Further, Unno teaches his steel foil has excellent stretch formability and little deformation anisotropy with respect to stretch forming despite having a sheet thickness of 60 µm or less, and the use of his steel foil results in a reduction is size and weight (paragraph 0036).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihisa (JP 2001/202932 A, published 27 Jul. 2001, hereinafter Yoshihisa) in view of Unno et al. (US Patent Application 2018/0237882 A1, published 23 Aug. 2018) and further in view of Ishizuka et al. (US Patent Application 2015/0037684 A1, published 05 Feb. 2015, hereinafter Ishizuka).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Yoshihisa in view of Unno teaches the elements of claim 1.
Yoshihisa in view of Unno do not disclose a surface treatment layer.
Ishizuka teaches a surface treatment comprising a nickel plating amount of 1 g/m2 or more and a chromium plating amount of 0.01 g/m2 or more (paragraphs 0088-0089).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of nickel and chromium plating from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Ishizuka because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Given that Yoshihisa and Ishizuka are drawn to steel foils for battery components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nickel and chromium plating as taught by Ishizuka on the steel foil for the battery packaging taught by Yoshihisa in view of Unno. Since Yoshihisa and Ishizuka are both drawn to steel foils for battery components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating nickel and chromium plating onto the steel foil in the battery container taught by Yoshihisa in view of Unno. Further, Ishizuka teaches his nickel and chromium plating metal improves metal elution in over-discharge (paragraph 0083).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787