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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-108023, filed on June 29th, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on October 9th, 2024, and December 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments of the claims and specifications filed on 15th December 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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.
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, 3, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al., (WO2020085189 – applicant provided reference in the IDS) in view of Suzuki (JP2019014939 – hereinafter, Suzuki ‘939).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayashi et al., teaches:
An exterior material for electrical storage devices comprising a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order ([0041], Fig 1- “exterior material 10 for energy storage device of this disclosure is composed of a laminate comprising, a base layer 1, a barrier layer 3, and a heat-fusible resin layer 4)
Wherein the barrier layer includes an aluminum alloy foil formulated to have a Fe content of 0.2 mass% or more and 2.0 mass% or less ([0018]- Fe content of 0.7 mass% or less) and a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less ([0016]- “The aluminum alloy foil of this disclosure has a magnesium (Mg) content of 0.20% by mass or more and 5.50% by mass or less”), and contain Al and inevitable impurities as balance ([0017]- “other components include unavoidable impurities”.
Hayashi et al., does not specifically teach:
In the aluminum foil, a ratio between a length of a high-angle grain boundary L1 and a length of a low-angle grain boundary of 1.2 per unit area as measured by an electron backscatter diffraction method satisfies the relationship of L1/L2 > 3.0
Suzuki ‘939, in a similar field of endeavor teaches:
“It is desirable to set L1/L2 > 2.0 for higher growth. More preferably, the above ratio is 2.5 or higher ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hayashi et al., and Suzuki ‘939, to:
Select the portion of Hayashi et al. range of concentration of Fe and Mg that corresponds to the claimed range and,
Use the ratio of L1 and L2 given by Suzuki ‘939, to have a foil with the claimed concentration of Fe and Mg and the value for the ratio between high-angle grain boundary and low-angle grain boundary to improve the elongation factor of the foil.
MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates the claim if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”, In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon. Hayashi et al., further teaches:
The exterior material for electrical storage devices according to claim 1 wherein, the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less ([0016]- Mg content is preferably 0.20% by mass or more and 2.20% by mass or less).
However, Hayashi et al., is silent on:
And the aluminum alloy foil has a tensile strength of 110 MPa or more and 180 MPa or less and a breaking elongation 10% or more.
Suzuki ‘939, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
In table 2 Row 7, the tensile strength is more than 110 MPa in 0° and the elongation is 25% or more making breaking elongation even higher than that.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
1124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Suzuki (JP2019014939))]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hayashi et al., and Suzuki ‘939 to have an aluminum foil having the concentration of Magnesium that falls within the range given by Hayashi et al., that has a tensile strength between 110 MPa and 180 MPa and has a breaking elongation higher than 10% given that Suzuki ‘939 states that ideal elongation of aluminum foil is 25% or more.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends upon. Hayashi et al., further teaches:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil has an average crystal grain size of 25 µm or less ([0023]- “the average crystal grain size in the aluminum alloy foil is preferably 20.0 µm or less).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 8 depends upon. Hayashi et al., further teaches:
wherein the aluminum alloy foil contains Mn in an amount of 0.1 mass% or less as the inevitable impurity ([0018]- “Mn content of 1.00 mass% or less”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 9 depends upon. Hayashi et al., further teaches:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Si content of 0.5 mass% or less ([0018]- “it is preferable that the aluminum alloy foil of this disclosure has a Si content of 0.40 mass% or less”).
Regarding Claim 10, Hayashi et al. in view of Suzuki ‘939, teaches:
An electrical storage device in which an electrical storage device element including at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte is housed in a packaging formed of the exterior material for electrical storage devices according to claim 1 (Hayashi, [0147]- “an energy storage device element comprising at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte in a package formed from the outer casing material for energy storage devices in this disclosure”; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 11, Hayashi et al., teaches:
A method for manufacturing an exterior material for electrical storage devices, the method comprising the step of laminating at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order to obtain a laminate ([0141], Fig 1- “a method is provided which involves laminating the base layer 1, the barrier layer 3, and the heat-fusible resin layer 4 in this order).
Wherein the barrier layer includes an aluminum alloy foil formulated to have a Fe content of 0.2 mass% or more and 2.0 mass% or less ([0018]- Fe content of 0.7 mass% or less) and a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less ([0016]- “The aluminum alloy foil of this disclosure has a magnesium (Mg) content of 0.20% by mass or more and 5.50% by mass or less”), and contain Al and inevitable impurities as balance ([0017]- “other components include unavoidable impurities”.
Hayashi et al., is silent on:
In the aluminum foil, a ratio between a length of a high-angle grain boundary L1 and a length of a low-angle grain boundary of 1.2 per unit area as measured by an electron backscatter diffraction method satisfies the relationship of L1/L2 > 3.0
However, Suzuki ‘939, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“It is desirable to set L1/L2 > 2.0 for higher growth. More preferably, the above ratio is 2.5 or higher ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hayashi et al., and Suzuki ‘939, to:
As taught in Hayashi et al., to have a method of manufacturing an exterior material for electrical storage that comprises of a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer, and,
Select the portion of Hayashi et al. range of concentration of Fe and Mg that corresponds to the claimed range and,
Use the ratio of L1 and L2 given by Suzuki ‘939, to have a foil with the claimed concentration of Fe and Mg and the value for the ratio between high-angle grain boundary and low-angle grain boundary that corresponds to the claimed range, to improve the elongation factor of the foil.
MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates the claim if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”, In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al., (WO2020085189 – applicant provided reference in the IDS) and in view of Suzuki (JP2019014939 – hereinafter Suzuki ‘939) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of van Agterveld et al., [Applied Surface Science]
Regarding Claim 2, Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939, teaches the limitations of claim 1 on which claim 2 depends upon. Hayashi et al., teaches:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less ([0016] – “preferably Mg is 0.20 mass% or more and 2.2 mass% or less”).
At least one surface of the aluminum foil has an oxide film with a thickness of 80Å or more ([0035]- “examples of corrosion-resistant film include metal oxides”, [0039]- “thickness of the corrosion-resistant film is preferably 1nm to 50nm”- or 10 to 500Å)
However, Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939, is silent on:
At least one surface of the aluminum alloy foil contains Mg in an amount of 5.0 atm% or more
However, van Agterveld et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
Al-Mg alloys can exhibit Mg surface segregation. Specifically, “phase separation areas with high (38% at.) and low (14% at.) (Introduction), and that,
“Preferential surface oxidation is strongly correlated with the Mg content and local compositional topology of Al-Mg alloys should be taken carefully into account while studying resistance corrosion studies” [Conclusions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939 to have an aluminum alloy foil with the claimed content of Mg and an oxide film with the claimed thickness and combine that with van Agterveld et al., teaching that distinct Mg concentrations including approximately 14 atm% and 38 atm% produce distinct differences in Mg surface segregation and oxidation, that the preferential surface oxidation is strongly correlated with Mg content, and the adjustment of the Mg concentration would be obvious to obtain desired surface properties. Furthermore, selecting a surface Mg concentration of at least 5.0 atm% or more would have been within the scope of such routine experimentation to achieve desired surface composition or oxide characteristic, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding Claim 4, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends upon. Hayashi et al., further teaches:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of more than 1.5 mass% and 5.0 mass% or less ([0016]- “preferably Mg is 0.20 mass% or more and 2.2 mass% or less”) and,
At least one surface of the aluminum alloy foil has an oxide film with a thickness of 120Å ([0039]- “thickness of corrosion-resistant film is preferably 1nm to 50nm”- or 10 to 500Å).
However, Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939, is silent on:
c. At least one surface of the aluminum foil contains Mg in an amount of 15.0 atom% or more.
However, van Agterveld et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
[Al-Mg alloys can exhibit Mg surface segregation. Specifically, “phase separation areas with high (38% at.) and low (14% at.) (Introduction)] and,
“Preferential surface oxidation is strongly correlated with the Mg content and local compositional topology of Al-Mg alloys should be taken carefully into account while studying resistance corrosion studies” [Conclusions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939 to have an aluminum alloy foil with the claimed content of Mg and an oxide film with the claimed thickness and combine that with van Agterveld et al., teaching that distinct Mg concentrations including approximately 14 atm% and 38 atm% produce distinct differences in Mg surface segregation and oxidation, that the preferential surface oxidation is strongly correlated with Mg content, and the adjustment of the Mg concentration would be obvious to obtain desired surface properties. Furthermore, selecting a surface Mg concentration of at least 14.0 atm% or more would have been within the scope of such routine experimentation to achieve desired surface composition or oxide characteristic, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding Claim 12, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 2, Hayashi et al., further teaches:
The exterior material for electrical storage devices according to claim 1 wherein, the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less ([0016]- Mg content is preferably 0.20% by mass or more and 2.20% by mass or less) and,
Suzuki ‘939 further teaches:
And the aluminum alloy foil has a tensile strength of 110 MPa or more and 180 MPa or less and a breaking elongation 10% or more (In Table 2 Row 7, the tensile strength is more than 110 MPa in 0° and the elongation is 25% or more making breaking elongation even higher than that).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hayashi et al., and Suzuki ‘939 to have an aluminum alloy foil that has a Mg content in the claimed range, and to test for the foil having a tensile strength greater than 110 MPa and a breaking elongation higher than at least 10% as per the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
1124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Suzuki (JP2019014939))]
Regarding Claim 15, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 2, Hayashi et al., further teaches:
“Wherein the aluminum alloy foil has an average crystal grain size of 25µm or less ([0023]- “the average crystal grain size in the aluminum alloy foil is preferably 20.0 µm or less”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 2, Hayashi et al., further teaches:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil contains Mn in an amount of 0.1 mass% or less as the inevitable impurity ([0018]- “aluminum alloy foil of the present disclosure…..Mn content of 1.00 mass% or less”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 2, Hayashi et al., further teaches:
Wherein the aluminum foil is formulated to have a Si content of 0.5 mass% or less ([0018]- “it is preferable that the aluminum alloy foil of this disclosure has a Si content of 0.40 mass% or less).
Regarding Claim 18, Hayashi et al. in view of Suzuki ‘939, teaches:
An electrical storage device in which an electrical storage device element including at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte is housed in a packaging formed of the exterior material for electrical storage devices according claim 2 (Hayashi, [0147]- “exterior material for a power storage device is used in a package for sealing and accommodating a power storage device element such as positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte- accommodated in a package formed by the exterior material for a power storage device”; see rejection of claim 2 above).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al., (WO2020085189 – applicant provided reference in the IDS) and in view of Suzuki (JP2019014939 – hereinafter Suzuki ‘939) and van Agterveld et al., [Applied Surface Science] as applied to claim 1 and claim 2 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP2019014940 – hereinafter Suzuki ‘940).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends upon. However, the combination as applied above is silent on:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil has a texture orientation density of 15 or less in each of copper orientation and R orientation.
However, Suzuki ‘940 in a similar field of endeavor teaches:
wherein the aluminum alloy foil has a texture orientation density of 15 or less in each of the Copper orientation and R orientation ([0008]- “the texture has a Cu orientation density of 40 or less and an R orientation density of 30 or less”).
Similarly,
Regarding Claim 14, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 2 (which is dependent on claim 1), which claim 14 depends upon. However, the combination as applied above is silent on:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil has a texture orientation density of 15 or less in each of copper orientation and R orientation.
However, Suzuki ‘940 in a similar field of endeavor teaches:
Wherein the aluminum alloy foil has a texture orientation density of 15 or less in each of the Copper orientation and R orientation ([0008]- “the texture has a Cu orientation density of 40 or less and an R orientation of 30 or less”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hayashi et al., Suzuki ‘939 and van Agterveld et al., with Suzuki ‘940 to have an aluminum foil for outer packaging with the claimed concentration of Mg and Fe and a ratio of a high-angle grain boundary L1 and a length of a low-angle grain boundary L2 per unit area along with selecting a portion of Suzuki ‘940 texture orientation density range in each of the Copper and R orientation.
MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates the claim if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al., (WO2020085189 – applicant provided reference in the IDS) and in view of Suzuki (JP2019014939 – hereinafter Suzuki ‘939) and further in view of Yamamoto et al., (JP2013256700).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above teaches the limitation of claim 1 which claim 5 depends upon. Hayashi et al., and Suzuki ‘939 further teach:
The exterior material for electrical storage devices according to claim 1, wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of more than 1.5 mass% and 5.0 mass% or less (Hayashi et al., [0016]- “preferably Mg is 0.20 mass% or more and 2.2 mass% or less”) and,
Breaking elongation of 15% or more (Suzuki - In Table 2 Row 7, the tensile strength is more than 110 MPa in 0° and the elongation is 25% or more making breaking elongation even higher than that).
However, Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939 is silent on:
The aluminum foil has a tensile strength of 180 MPa or more.
However, Yamamoto et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“The tensile strength of the aluminum alloy foil of the present invention is preferably 175 MPa or more”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the teachings of Hayashi et al., and Suzuki to have an aluminum foil as the outer packaging that has the Mg content in the range of the claimed invention and then use the teachings of Yamamoto et al., to have an aluminum foil with a tensile strength of 175 MPa or higher or 180 MPa or higher.
MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates the claim if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al., (WO2020085189 – applicant provided reference in the IDS) and in view of Suzuki (JP2019014939 – hereinafter Suzuki ‘939) and van Agterveld et al., [Applied Surface Science] as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al., (JP2013256700)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination above teaches the limitations of claim 4 (which is dependent on claim 1), which claim 13 depends upon. Hayashi et al. and Suzuki in view of van Agterveld et al., further teach:
The exterior material for electrical storage device according to claim 4, wherein the aluminum alloy foil is formulated to have a Mg content of more than 1.5 mass% and 5.0 mass% or less (Hayashi et al., [0016]- “preferably Mg is 0.20 mass% or more and 2.2 mass% or less”) and,
Breaking elongation of 15% or more (Suzuki ‘939- In Table 2 Row 7, the tensile strength is more than 110 MPa in 0° and the elongation is 25% or more making breaking elongation even higher than that).
However, Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939 and van Agterveld et al., is silent on:
The aluminum foil has a tensile strength of 180 MPa or more.
However, Yamamoto et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“The tensile strength of the aluminum alloy foil of the present invention is preferably 175 MPa or more”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the teachings of Hayashi et al., in view of Suzuki ‘939 and van Agterveld et al., to have an aluminum foil as the outer packaging that has the Mg content in the range of the claimed invention and then use the teachings of Yamamoto et al., to have an aluminum foil with a tensile strength of 175 MPa or higher or 180 MPa or higher.
MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates the claim if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Takahagi et al. (US20160308174A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAURAV K JHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, Alison L. Hindenlang can be reached at 571270-7001. 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.
/S.K.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights