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
The instant application was effectively filed on 27 October 2023, but claims priority to a Japanese Patent Application (App. No.: JP2021-076893) filed on 28 April 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 24 January 2024, 17 July 2025, 13 August 2025, and 12 November 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The value for hydrogen permeation current density for Example 2 of Table 1 includes Japanese characters, rather than the English “or less”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, recitation of the limitations "the first surface side" and “the second surface side” are indefinite; there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, it is unclear whether the iron-nickel alloy layer is laminated on a first surface, or a surface side of the first surface.
For examination purposes, lines 5-6 of claim 1 are interpreted to mean “… at least one of the first surface and the second surface opposite to the first surface of a metallic…”.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, recitation of the limitations "the first surface side" and “the second surface side” are indefinite; there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim; see rejection of claim 1, above, for explanation.
For examination purposes, lines 2-3 of claim 2 are interpreted to mean “… both the first surface and the second surface…” and lines 3-4 of claim 8 are interpreted to mean “… at an outermost surface on either one of the first surface and the second surface”, wherein the first surface and second surface are the same as those recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-8 are rejected, as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Unno et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2023/0146305), as evidenced by Yamamura et al. (U.S. Patent US 6,495,965).
Regarding claim 9¸ Unno teaches a method ([0072]) for manufacturing a surface treated steel foil (Ni-plated steel foil, Invention Example 11, Table 2, [0072]) for a current collector (see [0078]), the method comprising: a step of forming an iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]) that restrains permeation or diffusion of hydrogen (see explanation, below) in the surface treated steel foil for a current collector, on at least one surface side of a first surface side (Ni plated on first surface, [0072]) on which a hydrogen occluding alloy (Fe-Ni alloy, [0072]) is disposed and a second surface side (Ni plated on second surface, [0072]) on a side opposite to the first surface side of a metallic base material (steel sheet, [0072]),
wherein the iron-nickel alloy layer is formed by a step of performing nickel plating and a step of performing a heat treatment after the nickel plating (Ni-plated sheet is annealed to form Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072 and 0103]), or the iron-nickel alloy layer is formed by performing iron-nickel alloy plating.
It is the position of the Examiner that the Fe-Ni alloy is known in the art to be inherently a hydrogen occluding alloy, and would therefore restrain permeation or diffusion of hydrogen. Yamamura teaches an alloy consisting of iron, nickel, or a combination thereof as a hydrogen occlusion metal (see C4:L32-40). Further, since hydrogen occlusion is the storage of hydrogen in a material’s lattice structure, a teaching of a hydrogen occlusion metal would necessarily also teach a material that restrains permeation/diffusion, because the occluded hydrogen is restrained in the lattice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2023/0146305), in view of Ibargi et al. (U.S. 2017/0162836), as evidenced by Yamamura et al. (U.S. Patent US 6,495,965).
Regarding claim 1, Unno teaches a surface treated steel foil (Ni-plated steel foil, Invention Example 11, Table 2, [0072]) that is for a current collector (see [0078]) and that has a first surface (first surface, [0072]) on which a hydrogen occluding alloy (Fe-Ni alloy, [0072]) is disposed and a second surface located on a side opposite to the first surface (second surface, [0072]), the surface treated steel foil comprising:
an iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]) that is laminated on at least one surface side of the first surface side (Ni plated on first surface, [0072], see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation) and the second surface side on the side opposite to the first surface side (Ni plated on second surface, [0072], see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation) of a metallic base material composed of steel foil (sheet obtained from Slab A, Invention Example 11, Table 2, [0082-0083]) and that restrains permeation or diffusion of hydrogen (see explanation, below) in the surface treated steel foil for a current collector, wherein at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]) has a thickness (region between Ni plating and steel foil, [0067]).
but does not teach wherein at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]) has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm.
It is the position of the Examiner that the Fe-Ni alloy is known in the art to be inherently a hydrogen occluding alloy, and would therefore restrain permeation or diffusion of hydrogen. Yamamura teaches an alloy consisting of iron, nickel, or a combination thereof as a hydrogen occlusion metal (see C4:L32-40). Further, since hydrogen occlusion is the storage of hydrogen in a material’s lattice structure, a teaching of a hydrogen occlusion metal would necessarily also teach a material that restrains permeation/diffusion, because the occluded hydrogen is restrained in the lattice.
However, Ibargi teaches at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer (diffusion layer, containing Ni and Fe, [0011 and 0094]) has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm (preferably more than 1 µm, [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the iron-nickel alloy layer of Unno, such that it included at least one layer with a thickness greater than 0.5 µm, as taught by Ibargi, to prevent the degradation of corrosion resistance (see [0094]).
Regarding claim 2, Unno, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein iron-nickel alloy layers are formed on both the first surface side and the second surface side (Ni plated on first surface and second surface, [0072] and see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation) of the surface treated steel foil for a current collector, and a total thickness of the iron-nickel alloy layers on both surface sides is not less than 0.7 µm (preferably more than 1 µm, [0094], see rejection of claim 1 for modification).
Regarding claim 4, Unno, in view of Ibargi, teaches the iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]),
but does not teach wherein a deposition amount of nickel in the iron-nickel alloy layer is 0.80 to 53.4 g/m2.
However, Ibargi teaches a deposition amount of nickel in the iron-nickel alloy layer (diffusion alloy layer, containing Ni and Fe, [0011 and 0094]) is 0.80 to 53.4 g/m2 (1.35 g/m2, Example 1, Table 4, [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the iron-nickel alloy diffusion layer of Unno, in view of Ibargi, such that the deposition amount of nickel was between 0.8 and 53.4 g/m2, as taught by Ibargi, to improve corrosion resistance and minimize cost (see [0096 and 0121]).
Regarding claim 5, Unno, in view of Ibargi teaches further comprising: a metallic layer (Ni plating layer, [0067]) formed on the iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]), wherein the metallic layer is a nickel layer (see [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, Unno, in view of Ibargi, teaches the iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]) and the nickel layer (Ni plating layer, [0067])
but does not teach wherein a total nickel deposition amount in the iron-nickel alloy layer and the nickel layer is 2.0 to 53.4 g/m2.
However, Ibargi teaches a total nickel deposition amount in the iron-nickel alloy layer (1.35 g/m2, Example 1, Table 4, [0096]) and the nickel layer (10 to 30 g/m2, [0121]) is 2.0 to 53.4 g/m2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the iron-nickel alloy diffusion layer of Unno, in view of Ibargi, such that the deposition amount of nickel was between 2.0 and 53.4 g/m2, as taught by Ibargi, to improve corrosion resistance and minimize cost (see [0096 and 0121]).
Regarding claim 10, Unno teaches forming a nickel layer (Ni plating layer, [0067]) in the step of performing nickel plating ([0072 and 0085]),
but does not teach wherein a deposition amount of nickel in forming a nickel layer in the step of performing nickel plating is 0.80 to 53.4 g/m2.
However, Ibargi teaches a deposition amount of nickel in forming a nickel layer (nickel-plated layer, [0121]) in the step of performing nickel plating is is 0.8 to 53.4 g/m2 (10 to 30 g/m2, [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the step of performing nickel plating of Unno, such that the deposition amount of nickel was between 0.8 and 53.4 g/m2, as taught by Ibargi, to improve corrosion resistance and minimize cost (see [0096 and 0121]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2023/0146305), in view of Ibargi et al. (U.S. 2017/0162836), as evidenced by Ohashi et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0143442).
Regarding claim 3, Unno, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein the metallic base material is a low carbon steel (Slab A, 0.0020% Carbon, see Table 1 and explanation below) or an ultra low carbon steel.
Ohashi teaches that low-carbon steel is defined as steel with a carbon mass percentage of less than 0.20% (see [0035]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2023/0146305), in view of Ibargi et al. (U.S. 2017/0162836), and further in view of Omura et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2006/0191600), as evidenced by Ohtsuka et al. (Ohtsuka et al., 2018. Electrochemistry for Corrosion Fundamentals Chapter 5; 79-96).
Regarding claim 7, Unno, in view of Ibargi, is silent regarding a hydrogen permeation current density measured electrochemically is not more than 20 µA/cm2, where the hydrogen permeation current density is an increment of oxidation current measured on a hydrogen detection side when a potential of -1.5 V is applied on a hydrogen generation side under a condition in which a potential on the hydrogen detection side in a liquid electrolyte at 65 C is +0.4 V, with a reference electrode for potentials on the hydrogen detection side and the hydrogen generation side being Ag/AgCI.
However, it would appear that Unno, in view of Ibargi, teaches a hydrogen permeation current density within the claimed range inherently, because it is a property apparently resulting from the structure and composition recited in claim 1.
Further, Omura teaches a surface treated steel foil (compound oxide film formed on the surface of the steel, [0025]) wherein a hydrogen permeation current density measured electrochemically is not more than 20 µA/cm2 (permeation of hydrogen effectively prevented, [0017], see explanation below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the hydrogen permeation current density of the steel foil of Unno, in view of Ibargi and Ohtsuka, to be 0 µA/cm2, as taught by Omura, to prevent hydrogen embrittlement of structural equipment used in electrochemical devices exposed to hydrogen ([0001]).
Ohtsuka teaches that hydrogen permeation density (iH,r) would be equal to 0 µA/cm2 if hydrogen absorbed (Cab_E) is equal to 0 (see Equation 5.3, Page86 of Ohtsuka). It is the position of the Examiner that since Omura teaches hydrogen absorption below 3 ppm ([0017]), Omura would therefore teach a foil with a hydrogen permeation current density of ~0 µA/cm2 under any electrochemical measurement conditions, including those claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2023/0146305), in view of Ibargi et al. (U.S. 2017/0162836), further in view of Komori et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0151881) and Koyanagi et al. (JP 2019104948, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Unno, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein a nickel layer (Ni plating layer, [0067]) is formed at an outermost surface (see [0078]) on either one of the first surface side and the second surface side (plated on first surface and second surface, [0072], see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation),
but does not teach wherein a roughened nickel layer is formed at an outermost surface on either one of the first surface side and the second surface side, and a three-dimensional surface property parameter Sa of the roughened nickel layer is 0.2 to 1.3 µm.
However, Komori teaches a roughened layer (roughened surface of current collector, [0028]) is formed at an outermost surface on either one of the first surface side and the second surface side (second roughened surface, [0029]), and a three-dimensional surface property parameter Sa of the roughened layer is 0.2 to 1.3 µm (0.791 µm, [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the outermost layer of Unno, in view of Ibargi, such that it has a three-dimensional surface property parameter Sa between 0.2 and 1.3 µm, as taught by Komori, to maximize the points of contact between the current collector and electrode material, thereby reducing the contact resistance (see [0013]).
Unno, in view of Ibargi and Komori, still do not explicitly teach a roughened nickel layer.
However, Koyanagi teaches a roughened nickel layer (12, Fig. 2, see Page2:L4-5) is formed at an outermost surface (outermost layer, see Page2:L47-48) on either one of the first surface side (top of 11, Fig. 2) and the second surface side (see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the roughened outer layer of Unno, in view of Ibargi and Komori, such that it is a roughened nickel layer, as taught by Koyanagi, to provide excellent adhesion to other members of the battery, such as positive or negative electrode active material (see Page2:L1-3 and Page5:L31-35).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2, 6-10, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/557,606 [hererinafter ‘606], in view of Unno et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2023/0146305) and Ibargi et al. (U.S. 2017/0162836).
Regarding claim 1, ‘608 teaches a surface treated steel foil that is for a current collector and that has a first surface on which a hydrogen occluding alloy is disposed and a second surface located on a side opposite to the first surface, the surface treated steel foil comprising (claim 13 of ‘608):
an iron-nickel alloy layer that is laminated on at least one surface side of the first surface side and the second surface side on the side opposite to the first surface side of a metallic base material composed of steel foil and that restrains permeation or diffusion of hydrogen in the surface treated steel foil for a current collector (claim 13 of ‘608),
but does not teach wherein at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm.
However, Ibargi teaches at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer (diffusion layer, containing Ni and Fe, [0011 and 0094]) has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm (preferably more than 1 µm, [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the iron-nickel alloy layer of ‘606, such that it included at least one layer with a thickness greater than 0.5 µm, as taught by Ibargi, to prevent the degradation of corrosion resistance (see [0094]).
Regarding claim 3, ‘606, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein the metallic base material is a low carbon steel or an ultra low carbon steel (claim 13 of ‘608).
Claim 1, 2, and 4-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2, 6-10, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/557,606 [hererinafter ‘606], in view of Ibargi et al. (U.S. 2017/0162836).
Regarding claim 1, ‘606 teaches a surface treated steel foil that has a first surface and a second surface located on a side opposite to the first surface, the surface treated steel foil comprising (claim 13 of ‘606):
an iron-nickel alloy layer that is laminated on at least one surface side of the first surface side and the second surface side on the side opposite to the first surface side (claim 1 of ‘606),
but does not teach a surface treated steel foil that is for a current collector and that has a first surface on which a hydrogen occluding alloy is disposed, comprising an iron-nickel alloy layer on at least one surface side of the first surface side and the second surface side on the side opposite to the first surface side of a metallic base material composed of steel foil and that restrains permeation or diffusion of hydrogen in the surface treated steel foil for a current collector, wherein at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm.
However, Unno teaches a surface treated steel foil (Ni-plated steel foil, Invention Example 11, Table 2, [0072]) that is for a current collector (see [0078]) and that has a first surface (first surface, [0072]) on which a hydrogen occluding alloy (Fe-Ni alloy, [0072]) is disposed, comprising an iron-nickel alloy layer (Fe-Ni alloy layer, [0072]) on at least one surface side of the first surface side (Ni plated on first surface, [0072]) and the second surface side on the side opposite to the first surface side (Ni plated on second surface, [0072]) of a metallic base material composed of steel foil (sheet obtained from Slab A, Invention Example 11, Table 2, [0082-0083]) and that restrains permeation or diffusion of hydrogen (see 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 for explanation) in the surface treated steel foil for a current collector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface treated steel foil of ‘606, such that it was for a current collector and has a first surface on which a hydrogen occluding alloy is disposed to restrain permeation of hydrogen, as taught by Unno, to provide a current collector with excellent resistance to rust and metal-ion leaching (Abstract).
‘603, in view of Unno, still does not teach wherein at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm.
However, Ibargi teaches at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer (diffusion layer, containing Ni and Fe, [0011 and 0094]) has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm (preferably more than 1 µm, [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the iron-nickel alloy layer of ‘606, such that it included at least one layer with a thickness greater than 0.5 µm, as taught by Ibargi, to prevent the degradation of corrosion resistance (see [0094]).
Regarding claim 2, ‘606, in view of Ibargi teaches wherein iron-nickel alloy layers are formed on both the first surface side and the second surface side of the surface treated steel foil for a current collector (claim 3 of ‘606), and a total thickness of the iron-nickel alloy layers on both surface sides is not less than 0.7 µm (see modification in view of Ibargi, above).
Regarding claim 4, ‘606, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein a deposition amount of nickel in the iron-nickel alloy layer is 0.80 to 53.4 g/m2. (claim 6 of ‘606).
Regarding claim 5, ‘606, in view of Ibargi teaches further comprising: a metallic layer formed on the iron-nickel alloy layer, wherein the metallic layer is a nickel layer (claim 7 of ‘606).
Regarding claim 6, ‘606, in view of Ibargi teaches wherein a total nickel deposition amount in the iron-nickel alloy layer and the nickel layer is 2.0 to 53.4 g/m2. (claim 8 of ‘606).
Regarding claim 7, ‘606, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein a hydrogen permeation current density measured electrochemically is not more than 20 µA/cm2, where the hydrogen permeation current density is an increment of oxidation current measured on a hydrogen detection side when a potential of -1.5 V is applied on a hydrogen generation side under a condition in which a potential on the hydrogen detection side in a liquid electrolyte at 65 C is +0.4 V, with a reference electrode for potentials on the hydrogen detection side and the hydrogen generation side being Ag/AgCI (claim 9 of ‘606).
Regarding claim 8, ‘606, in view of Ibargi, teaches teach wherein a roughened nickel layer is formed at an outermost surface on either one of the first surface side and the second surface side, and a three-dimensional surface property parameter Sa of the roughened nickel layer is 0.2 to 1.3 µm (claim 10 of ‘606).
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7, 9-13 of copending Application No. 18/557,608 [hererinafter ‘608], in view of Ibargi et al. (U.S. 2017/0162836).
Regarding claim 1, ‘608 teaches a surface treated steel foil that is for a current collector and that has a first surface on which a hydrogen occluding alloy is disposed and a second surface located on a side opposite to the first surface, the surface treated steel foil comprising (claim 13 of ‘608):
an iron-nickel alloy layer that is laminated on at least one surface side of the first surface side and the second surface side on the side opposite to the first surface side of a metallic base material composed of steel foil and that restrains permeation or diffusion of hydrogen in the surface treated steel foil for a current collector (claims 1 and 13 of ‘608),
but does not teach wherein at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm.
However, Ibargi teaches at least one layer included in the iron-nickel alloy layer (diffusion layer, containing Ni and Fe, [0011 and 0094]) has a thickness of not less than 0.5 µm (preferably more than 1 µm, [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the iron-nickel alloy layer of ‘608, such that it included at least one layer with a thickness greater than 0.5 µm, as taught by Ibargi, to prevent the degradation of corrosion resistance (see [0094]).
Regarding claim 2, ‘608, in view of Ibargi teaches wherein iron-nickel alloy layers are formed on both the first surface side and the second surface side of the surface treated steel foil for a current collector (claim 8 of ‘608), and a total thickness of the iron-nickel alloy layers on both surface sides is not less than 0.7 µm (see modification in view of Ibargi, above).
Regarding claim 3, ‘608, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein the metallic base material is a low carbon steel or an ultra low carbon steel (claim 6 of ‘608).
Regarding claim 4, ‘608, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein a deposition amount of nickel in the iron-nickel alloy layer is 0.80 to 53.4 g/m2. (claim 7 of ‘608).
Regarding claim 5, ‘608, in view of Ibargi, teaches further comprising: a metallic layer formed on the iron-nickel alloy layer, wherein the metallic layer is a nickel layer (claim 9 of ‘608).
Regarding claim 6, ‘608, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein a total nickel deposition amount in the iron-nickel alloy layer and the nickel layer is 2.0 to 53.4 g/m2. (claim 10 of ‘608).
Regarding claim 7, ‘608, in view of Ibargi, teaches wherein a hydrogen permeation current density measured electrochemically is not more than 20 µA/cm2, where the hydrogen permeation current density is an increment of oxidation current measured on a hydrogen detection side when a potential of -1.5 V is applied on a hydrogen generation side under a condition in which a potential on the hydrogen detection side in a liquid electrolyte at 65 C is +0.4 V, with a reference electrode for potentials on the hydrogen detection side and the hydrogen generation side being Ag/AgCI (claim 11 of ‘608).
Regarding claim 8, ‘608, in view of Ibargi, teaches teach wherein a roughened nickel layer is formed at an outermost surface on either one of the first surface side and the second surface side, and a three-dimensional surface property parameter Sa of the roughened nickel layer is 0.2 to 1.3 µm (claim 12 of ‘606).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights